1998CRS10145A DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,, Part 1/5
no...@senate.gov
Message-ID: <1998CR...@us.govnews.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
[Congressional Record: September 10, 1998 (Senate)]
[Page S10145-S10177]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr10se98-125]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 2237 which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
McCain/Feingold amendment No. 3554, to reform the financing
of Federal elections.
Amendment No. 3554
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between 10 a.m. and noon is to be
equally divided between the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the
Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, on amendment No. 3554.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed
to control the time of Senator Gorton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Alaska such
time as he may need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky, who
has labored in the area of campaign finance for an extended period of
time, whose expertise many of us depend upon because once again this
Senate is being called upon to reform our campaign finance laws.
As with many issues, the issue of so-called reforming the laws is
somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. As a consequence, I ask my
colleagues to consider this legislation in perhaps a different context.
The issue before this body, in my opinion, is simply: To what extent,
if any, should the Federal Government regulate political free speech in
America? The campaign finance debate is not just about politicians and
their campaigns. At the core of this debate are the values and freedoms
guaranteed by the first amendment. As a consequence, I suggest when
Government attempts to place limitations on speech, it has an
overwhelming burden to demonstrate why such restrictions to our
fundamental freedoms are necessary. Surely the Government can no more
dictate how many words a newspaper can print than it can limit a
political candidate's ability to communicate with his or her
constituents, yet that is precisely what the sponsors of this
legislation are proposing for candidates for office.
The McCain-Feingold legislation bristles with over a dozen different
restrictions on speech, provisions that I believe flagrantly violate
the first amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I cannot
overemphasize the point that was made by George F. Will in a Washington
Post editorial. He stated, commenting on the McCain-Feingold bill:
Nothing in American history--not the left's recent ``campus
speech codes,'' nor the right's depredations during the 1950s
McCarthyism or the 1920 ``red scare,'' not the Alien and
Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the First
Amendment posed by campaign ``reforms'' advancing under the
protective coloration of political hygiene.
One of the most serious problems with this bill is that it contains
restrictions on ``express advocacy'' within 60 days of an election by
independent groups. And what is ``express advocacy''?
Mr. President, if this proposal ever becomes law, we can change the
name of the Federal Election Commission to the Federal Campaign Speech
Police. Every single issue advertisement would be taped, reviewed,
analyzed, and perhaps litigated. The speech police will set up their
offices in all of the 50 States to ensure the integrity of political
advertising. Is that what we in this Chamber really want? I don't think
so. But that is what will eventually happen if we adopt McCain-
Feingold.
I assure my colleagues, and hope they understand, that this wholesale
encroachment on the first amendment would be immediately struck down by
the courts as unconstitutional.
Moreover, if a group of citizens decide to pool their money and
advocate their political position in newspaper advertisements and
television ads, what right does the Federal Government have to restrict
their right of speech? Indeed, do we want to turn over the debate on
political issues to the owners of the broadcast stations, the owners of
the newspapers, and the editorialists during the 60-day period leading
up to an election? Would my colleagues who are supporting this bill be
ready to stand up and vote to ban election editorials in newspapers and
on television in the last 60 days of a campaign?
Many members of the public think we need fundamental changes to our
election financial laws because in the 1996 Presidential election they
witnessed the most abusive campaign finance strategy ever conceived in
this country.
There is an answer to those who abuse power. And the answer does not
mean you have to shred the first amendment. The answer is a very simple
one. It is that our current election finance laws must be strictly
enforced, something that this administration has been extremely
reluctant to do for obvious reasons.
Mr. President, as grand jury indictments amass with regard to
Democratic fundraising violations in the 1996 Presidential election, we
learn more and more about President Clinton's use of the prerequisite
of the Presidency as a fundraising tool. It is important to recall some
of those abuses as we consider this debate.
You recall, Mr. President, the Lincoln bedroom. During the 5 years
that
[[Page S10146]]
President Clinton has resided in the White House, an astonishing 938
guests have spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom and generated at
least $6 million for the Democratic National Committee.
Presidential historian Richard Norton Smith stated there has ``never
been anything of the magnitude of President Clinton's use of the White
House for fundraising purposes * * * it's the selling of the White
House.''
The Presidential coffees: President Clinton hosted 103 ``Presidential
coffees.'' Guests at these coffees, which included a convicted felon
and a Chinese businessman who heads an arms trading company, donated
$27 million to the Democratic National Committee.
President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, gave the President
weekly memorandums which included projected moneys he expected at each
of the ``Clinton coffees'' and what they would raise. He projected each
would raise no less than $400,000.
In the area of foreign contributions, investigations by both the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the Department of Justice
into campaign abuses into the 1996 Presidential campaign have revealed
that the Democrats recklessly accepted illegal foreign donations in
exchange for Presidential access and other favors.
A few examples: We recall John Huang. John Huang raised millions of
dollars in illegal foreign contributions for the Democratic National
Committee which the DNC has already returned.
John Huang, despite being wholly unqualified according to his
immediate boss, received an appointment to the Department of Commerce
where he improperly accessed numerous classified documents pertaining
to China.
John Huang made at least 67 visits to the White House, often meeting
with senior officials on U.S. trade policy. The committee had deemed
that this was unusual because Huang's position in Commerce was at a
very low level.
Senator Specter stated that the activities of Mr. Huang at the
Commerce Department had ``all the earmarks of * * * espionage.''
Charlie Trie, a long-time friend of President Clinton, raised and
contributed at least $640,000 in contributions to the Clinton, Gore
Campaign and for the Democratic National Committee.
Shortly thereafter, President Clinton signed an Executive Order that
increased the size of the U.S. Commission on Pacific Trade and then
appointed Mr. Trie to the Commission.
On January 29th of this year, the Department of Justice indicted Trie
on charges that he funneled illegal foreign contributions to the 1996
Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in order to buy access to top
Democratic Party and Clinton administration officials.
Vice President Gore was present at an event in a Buddhist temple
where $80,000 in contributions to the Democratic National Committee
were laundered through penniless nuns and monks.
Vice President Gore offered differing characterizations of the
Buddhist temple event. First, the Vice President described the event as
a ``community outreach.'' He later characterized it as a ``donor-
maintenance'' event where ``no money was offered or collected or raised
at the event.''
However, the Department of Justice determined otherwise. So on
February 18, veteran Democratic fundraiser Maria Hsia was charged in a
six-count indictment by the Department of Justice for her part in
raising the illegal contributions for the Democratic National Committee
at the Buddhist temple event.
Mr. President, just the day before yesterday, our Attorney General
ordered a 90-day inquiry into whether President Clinton circumvented
Federal election laws in 1996. This investigation could lead to yet
another independent counsel investigation. This 90-day inquiry is in
addition to an inquiry focusing on Vice President Gore's statements
about his 1996 telephone fundraising calls in the White House.
Mr. President, our current campaign finance system has many flaws,
but the point I want to make to my colleagues is that these flaws do
not justify shredding the first amendment, especially because the
current occupant of the White House pushed the envelope of legality in
his search to finance his reelection campaign.
Mr. President, as Floyd Abrams, a noted first amendment lawyer, has
stated:
First amendment principles should guide whatever
legislative solution we choose. The first principle is that
it is not for Congress to decide that political speech is
some sort of disease that we must quarantine.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional
infringement on free speech.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his outstanding
speech and his contributions over the years to this important first
amendment discussion.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. There was some discussion yesterday on the floor with
regard to the issue of advocacy about a case called Furgatch. And the
supporters of McCain-Feingold spent a lot of time trying to interpret
the Furgatch decision as allowing the kind of suppression of issue
advocacy by citizens that I think clearly is a misreading of the case.
Those who advocate McCain-Feingold and, for that matter, the Snowe-
Jeffords substitute regulatory regimes, have precious few court cases
on which to base their arguments. Most prominent among these is the
ninth circuit's Furgatch decision, dating back to 1987. It is mighty
slim, Mr. President, the Furgatch limb upon which their issue advocacy
regulation case rests.
While Furgatch is not my favorite decision, it is certainly not the
blank check for reformers who seek to shut down issue advocacy, either.
Furgatch was an express advocacy case, nothing short. It was about a
different subject. It was an express advocacy case, not an issue
advocacy case. It hinged on the content of the communication at issue--
words, explicit terms--just as the Supreme Court required in Buckley
and reiterated in Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
The words in Furgatch were not those contained in Buckley's footnote
52. Indeed, no one, least of all the Supreme Court, ever intended that
the list--also known as ``footnote 52''--was exhaustive. That would
defy common sense.
Desperate for even the thinnest constitutional gruel upon which to
base their regulatory zeal to extend their reach to everyone who dares
to utter a political word in this country, the FEC leapt at Furgatch
and won't let go. FEC lawyers misread it, they also misrepresent it,
and are rewarded with loss after loss in the courts.
In last year's fourth circuit decision ordering the FEC to pay one of
its victims, the Christian Action Network's attorneys' fees, the
Furgatch-as-blank-check-for-issue-advocacy-regulation fantasy was
thoroughly dissected, debunked and dispensed with.
The court in the Christian Action Network case puts Furgatch in the
proper perspective. Let me just read a couple of parts of the Christian
Action Network case.
The court says:
. . . less than a month following the Court's decision in
[Massachusetts Citizens for Life], the Ninth Circuit in FEC
v. Furgatch . . . could not have been clearer that it, too,
shared this understanding of the Court's decision in Buckley.
Although the court declined to ``strictly limit'' express
advocacy to the ``magic words'' of Buckley's footnote 52
because that footnote's list does ``not exhaust the capacity
of the English language to expressly advocate election or
defeat of a candidate . . .
Curiously, the Ninth Circuit never cited or discussed the
Supreme Court's opinion in [Massachusetts Citizens for Life],
notwithstanding that [Massachusetts Citizens for Life] was
argued in the Supreme Court three months prior to the
decision in Furgatch and decided by the Court almost a month
prior to the Court of Appeals' decision. The Ninth Circuit
does discuss the First Circuit's opinion in [Massachusetts
Citizens for Life], but without noting that certiorari had
been granted to review the case. . . . Thus, the Furgatch
court relied upon Buckley alone, without the reaffirmation
provided by the Court in [Massachusetts Citizens for Life],
for its conclusion that explicit ``words'' or ``language'' of
advocacy are required if the Federal Election Campaign Act is
to be constitutionally enforced.
. . . the entire premise of the court's analysis was that
words of advocacy such as those recited in footnote 52 were
required to support Commission jurisdiction over a given
corporate expenditure.
[[Page S10147]]
The point here is that in case after case after case the FEC has lost
in court seeking to restrict the rights of individual citizens to
engage in issue advocacy. There is no basis for this effort. And the
courts have been turning them down and turning them down and turning
them down. In fact, there have been three cases in the last few months:
North Carolina Right to Life versus Bartlett, April 30, 1998, an issue
advocacy case decided consistent with the observations the Senator from
Kentucky has made; Right to Life of Duchess County versus FEC, June 1,
1998 of this year, another decision consistent with the points the
Senator from Kentucky has made; and Virginia Society of Human Life
versus Caldwell, June 5 of this year.
In short, there is no constitutional way--and importantly, we are not
going to do that by passing this unfortunate legislation--but there is
no constitutional way that the government can shut these people up at
any point, up to and including the election. There is no legal basis,
no constitutional basis for the assumption that there are any
restrictions that can be placed upon the ability of citizens to
criticize elected officials, or anyone else for that matter, up to and
including the day before the election.
Finally, let me say, as I mentioned yesterday, the institutions in
America pushing the hardest for these restrictions on groups are the
newspapers who engage in issue advocacy every day, both in their news
stories and on their editorial pages, up to and including the election.
Their issue advocacy would be totally untouched, and I am not arguing
that we should touch it. I think they are free to speak. What bothers
me about the newspapers, particularly the New York Times, the
Washington Post and USA Today, they want to shut everybody else up.
They want to have a free ride when it comes to criticizing political
figures in proximity to an election. Fortunately, the courts would not
allow that.
This measure is not going to pass so we won't have to worry about it,
but it is a flawed concept, and I think it is important for our
colleagues to understand that.
How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 39 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
control the time on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to just take a moment of the time
to point out that once again a case that the Senator from Kentucky has
been discussing is a case that is appropriate in some situations but is
not really applicable to the current provision of the McCain-Feingold
bill that is before the body. The Senator can stand up and cite all
kinds of cases about a lot of provisions, but the provisions are not in
the bill at this time. So I hope those who are listening don't get
confused about case law that has nothing to do with our actual
amendment.
Previous versions of the McCain-Feingold bill included a codification
of the Furgatch decision, but with the passage of the Snowe-Jeffords
amendment in February, the provision that we have before the Senate now
simply doesn't include that approach. It takes a different approach to
the issue advocacy problem. A number of constitutional scholars,
including Dan Ortiz of Virginia Law School, believe this approach is
constitutional.
I understand the strategy--keep bringing up aspects of the bill that
were concerns in the past, make people think those are still there and
get people to be uncomfortable with the bill. I understand the strategy
because we have 52 votes already for this amendment as it actually is
being presented. So that everyone understands, these are arguments
against a bill that is not before the Senate. I assume that is because
they don't have very strong arguments against the bill that is, in
fact, before the Senate.
This afternoon we will vote once again on the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance reform bill. Twice before we have debated this issue
and twice we have been blocked by filibusters--I might add, not just by
filibusters conducted after an amending process has occurred, but
filibusters used to prevent the legitimate and normal process of
allowing Members of the Senate to amend a bill.
Some may ask, Why do you keep bringing us back to vote on it? The
reason, quite simply put, is that this is a crucial issue. It is a
defining issue for the 105th Congress. After all, we spent an entire
year investigating the campaign finance abuses of the 1996 elections.
That investigation, as the distinguished Senator from Tennessee who led
the investigation I am sure will tell us when he speaks today, showed
beyond a shadow of doubt that reform is needed. Of course, in response
to that, the House has passed a strong campaign finance reform bill,
very similar to the amendment we have offered here.
We owe it to the American people to finish the job. The American
people elected us to be legislators, Mr. President, not just
investigators. Investigations are fine and appropriate, but we will
have failed in our duties as legislators if we do not enact laws to
address the problems that our investigations uncover. With the House
vote early last month, meaningful campaign finance reform is in sight.
This Senate has an obligation to address the campaign finance issue,
and the public expects us to act. We know that a majority here
understands that obligation. The question is whether we can get closer
now to the supermajority of 60 votes that we apparently will still need
in order to end debate on this amendment and get to a vote on the
merits.
I hope that in the short time we have to debate this issue today we
will actually debate our amendment, what is before the Senate. Again,
yesterday we heard a number of opponents of the bill speak at length
about cases that have nothing to do with the provisions that are
actually in this bill. We heard a lengthy discussion of the history of
campaign spending, with interesting, but really not very relevant,
expositions about donors to an unsuccessful Presidential campaign 30
years ago.
I really hope we hear an actual justification from those on the other
side today, an actual justification for voting against a ban on the
unlimited corporate and labor contribution to political parties known
as soft money. I hope that when they wax eloquent again about the first
amendment rights of citizens, they will actually direct their criticism
to our bill, to the Snowe-Jeffords amendment on electioneering
communications, rather than severely exaggerating the effect and intent
of those provisions.
To no one's surprise, the headlines this morning in the newspapers
are not about campaign finance reform. The scandal that has occupied
the Nation's attention for the past 8 months has reached a new and
critical phase with the delivery of the Starr report to the House of
Representatives. Many Senators are understandably very much concerned
about how the impeachment process will play out. But for now, the
report is on the other side of the Capitol. We still have a job to do
here. We have many things to do here. But first on the list has got to
be to somehow address the scandals that occupied our attention for much
of 1997. Of course, the matters of 1998 have to be addressed, but are
we just going to leave the scandals of 1996 behind, let them be washed
away as if nothing wrong was done?
The biggest threat to our democracy still comes from this out-of-
control campaign finance system, notwithstanding the very serious news
of the day. Let us not be distracted from our duty to address that
threat.
There are many Senators who support reform who would like to speak
today, and our time is limited. So let me conclude by putting my
colleagues on notice. The vote this afternoon on cloture will not be
the end of the effort to pass campaign finance reform this year. I am
sorry if this is an issue that is inconvenient or uncomfortable for
some Senators to deal with. The American people didn't send us here for
our convenience or for our comfort. They sent us to do a job, and we
are going to do it.
This amendment that is pending will continue to be pending. I hope it
will become the subject of a legitimate legislative process. What I
mean by that
[[Page S10148]]
is, when there is an amendment that has a majority of support in this
body, at the bare minimum Senators should be allowed to offer
amendments, offer their ideas and their concepts about how to make it
better. I understand the argument that you need 60 votes to pass it
anyway. That has a lot of truth to it. But this process has repeatedly
and cynically denied us the chance to simply amend the bill. That is
how they passed it in the House. Everybody didn't love the bill right
away. They adopted a number of amendments. They were allowed to offer
their ideas and vote on them.
We have been prohibited from improving this bill beyond the Snowe-
Jeffords amendment. Of course, we know why. When we did Snowe-Jeffords,
lo and behold, we got three more votes and we had a majority. Then the
game was declared over. That is not a legitimate legislative process.
That is not a fair process. That is the intentional denying of the
majority of both Houses their right to fashion a bill that they can
send on to the President. So I am not denying the right to filibuster.
But denying the right to amend this amendment is well beyond the norm
in this body, especially when we have demonstrated that 52 Senators are
already committed to this amendment as it currently stands. So they
continue to deny the majority even the right to make a reasonable
change, to ask each other, ``What change would you like in order to
make this bill acceptable to you?'' I think that is highly
inappropriate.
So the only way to avoid this discomfort is for Members to vote for
cloture and let the majority do its will on this issue.
Mr. President, if the Senator from Maine is interested, I will yield
to her. How much time does the Senator need?
Ms. SNOWE. I need 15 minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator
from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the McCain-
Feingold campaign finance amendment before us. It is often said that
when it comes to the important things in life, we don't get a second
chance. Well, today, we are presented with such a second chance this
year to pass comprehensive, meaningful campaign finance reform. We have
a third chance this Congress, for which I thank Senators McCain and
Feingold for their unflagging determination. I also want to thank the
majority leader for allowing us an opportunity to have another vote on
this issue on the Interior appropriations bill.
Indeed, it seems, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that reports of campaign
finance reform's demise have been greatly exaggerated. I hail authors
of the House bill for their tenacity and the Members of the House who
defied conventional wisdom and passed a comprehensive reform bill along
the lines of McCain-Feingold.
We are back here to attach this legislation to this appropriations
bill because the House of Representatives courageously chose to do
their part to dispel the cynicism that hung over the Capitol like a
cloud. They have brought this issue out into the light of day, and it
is long past time that we here in the Senate do likewise.
When you consider the veritable mountain, indeed, the sheer cliff
wall of legislative obstacles the Shays-Meehan bill had to overcome, it
is unthinkable that we cannot overcome our hurdles in this Chamber. It
was truly a ``long and winding road'' for the Shays-Meehan bill which,
at first, wasn't even going to be considered. Finally, when the
drumbeat for the Shays-Meehan bill would not die, a process was devised
that would allow for the consideration of 11 different plans and more
than 250 amendments.
The so-called ``Queen of the Hill'' contest played itself out from
May 21 through August 6. But in the end, when the smoke finally
cleared, the Shays-Meehan bill remained standing in what has to be one
of the most remarkable legislative victories in recent memory.
By a vote of 252-179--including 61 Republicans--Shays-Meehan was
passed in the House in the face of overwhelming odds and, thus, our
mandate was handed to us here in the Senate.
Like the House, we, too, have a majority who are already on record in
favor of reform--52 Senators--thanks to the leadership of Senators
McCain and Feingold in bringing this legislation to the floor earlier
this year. Unlike the House, we have twice failed to pass a bill. We
have twice failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to defeat a
filibuster. But for the very first time, as a result of the McCain-
Feingold vote we had earlier this year, we received a majority in
support of that legislation--the very first campaign finance reform
bill to receive a majority vote here in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, I cannot believe there aren't eight other Senators in
this body who understand the fundamental issue we are faced with: the
very integrity of this institution, as well as the process that brings
us here. When the House of Representatives can get a bipartisan
majority of 252 Members to understand the implications, people might
wonder why it is so hard to find eight more Senators to do the same. I
have asked the same question myself.
Last week, Senator Lieberman, during a widely and deservedly praised
speech, stood in this Chamber and appealed to a higher principle than
partisanship or the politics of self-preservation. He wasn't speaking
of election reform, but his appeal to our more noble instincts is
relevant to this debate. In fact, it is integral.
Reforming our broken campaign system is not a Republican thing, not a
Democrat thing, but the right thing. It is something we owe to
ourselves as leaders, it is something we owe to this institution, and
it is something we owe to the American people as participants in the
world's greatest democracy.
I know that some have said that the American people actually aren't
very concerned about this issue. They point to studies, such as a poll
conducted this year by the Pew Research Center, which ranked campaign
reform 13th on a list of 14 major issues. But let's look at the reason:
The report also said that public confidence in Congress to write an
effective and fair campaign law had declined. In other words, the
American people have given up on us. They are betting we won't do it.
That is a sad commentary. I say, let's surprise them and do the right
thing. I say, we have a solemn obligation not to justify their
cynicism.
And to those who argue that now is not the time to take up this
issue, my response is: What better time than now? This is the most
optimum time to change the political dynamic today.
After an election in which the most corruptive elements were brought
to bear, after we learn of illegal donations from the Chinese in an
attempt to gain influence, after we learn of more than 45 fundraising
calls from the White House, after we learn that the President may have
controlled advertising paid for by the DNC but aimed at reelecting the
President, after the Attorney General launched three separate
preliminary investigations in the last 2 weeks into these allegations,
after we learn of the explosion of soft money and electioneering ads--
after all of these things, now is the time to clean up the system.
Mr. President, I come to this debate as a veteran supporter of
campaign finance reform. As someone who has served on Capitol Hill for
almost 20 years, I understand the realities and I know there are
concerns on both sides of the aisle that whatever measure we may
ultimately pass, it must be fair, it must treat everyone as equitably
as possible.
In fact, I agree with those concerns. That is the challenge that
brought Senator Jeffords and me to the table last October when we first
attempted to consider this issue. It is what brought us back in
February, and it is the reason I am here again today.
I said last year that we should be putting our heads together, not
building walls between us with intractable rhetoric and all-or-nothing
propositions. Senator Jeffords and I attempted to bridge the gulf
between two sides and expand support for McCain-Feingold by making
sensible incremental changes.
We were joined in this bipartisan effort by both Senators McCain and
Feingold, as well as Senators Levin, Chafee, Lieberman, Thompson,
Collins, Breaux, and Specter.
I thank them again for their tremendous help and support.
Together we not only won adoption of the amendment, but we helped
bring
[[Page S10149]]
this body to the first real vote on campaign finance reform and moved
the debate forward by actually having the debate, and we solidified
majority support for McCain-Feingold.
I would like to take a few moments to speak about the provisions of
the Snowe-Jeffords measure and why I think this measure is now
considered worthy of the support of my Republican colleagues.
The McCain-Feingold measure we are now considering takes a tremendous
step forward by putting an end to soft money, tightening coordination
definitions, and working to level the playing field for candidates
facing opponents with vast personal wealth spent on their own
campaigns. It also addresses the issues concerning the use of
unregulated and undisclosed advertising that affects Federal elections,
and the concerns that the original bill's attempt at addressing this
issue would not withstand court scrutiny. This is important because if
the courts had ruled the bill's efforts to address the distinction
between true advocacy ads that influence Federal elections to be
unconstitutional, then essentially all that would remain would be a ban
on soft money. If that were to happen, we would be left with only one-
half of the equation, and I share the concerns of those who want to see
balanced reform--and a level playing field, not throw it even further
off kilter.
The Snowe-Jeffords approach would be much more likely to pass court
muster. It was developed in consultation with noted constitutional
scholars and reformers such as Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise
Institute and Josh Rosenkrantz, Director of the Brennan Center for
Justice at NYU, as well as others. And it goes to the heart of the
``stealth advocacy ads'' which purport to be only about issues but are
really designed to influence the outcome of federal elections.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the document from the
Brennan Center for Justice be printed in the Record at the conclusion
of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the approach in this amendment is a
straightforward, two tiered one that only applies to advertisements
that constitute the most blatant form of electioneering. It only
applies to ads run on radio or television, 30 days before a primary and
60 days before a general election, that identify a federal candidate.
And only if over $10,000 is spent on such ads in a year. What is
required is disclosure of the ads' sponsor and major donors, and a
prohibition on the use of union dues or corporate treasury funds to
finance the ads.
We called this new category ``electioneering ads''. They are the only
communications addressed, and we define them very narrowly and
carefully.
If the ad is not run on television or radio; if the ad is not aired
within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, if the ad
doesn't mention a candidate's name or otherwise identify him clearly,
if it isn't targeted at the candidate's electorate, or if a group
hasn't spent more than $10,000 in that year on these ads, then it is
not an electioneering ad.
If is an item appearing in a news story, commentary, voter guides or
editorial distributed through a broadcast station, it is also not an
electioneering ad. Plain and simple.
If one does run an electioneering ad, two things happen. First, the
sponsor must disclose the amount spent and the identity of contributors
who donated more than $500 to the group since January 1<SUP>st</SUP> of
the previous year. Right now, candidates have to disclose campaign
contributions over $200--so the threshold contained in McCain-Feingold
is much higher. Second, the ad cannot be paid for by funds from a
business corporation or labor union--only voluntary contributions.
The clear, narrow wording of the amendment is important because it
passes two critical first amendment doctrines that were at the heart of
the Supreme Court's landmark Buckley versus Valeo decision: vagueness
and overbreadth. The rules of this provision are clear. And the
requirements are strictly limited to ads run near an election that
identify a candidate--ads plainly intended to convince voters to vote
for or against a particular candidate.
Nothing in this provision restricts the right of any group to engage
in issue advocacy. Nothing prohibits groups from running electioneering
ads, either. Let me be clear on this: if this bill becomes law, any
group running issues ads today can still run issue ads in the future,
with no restrictions on content. And any group running electioneering
ads can still run those ads in the future, again with absolutely zero
restrictions on content.
So to those who will argue, as they did in February, that this
measure runs afoul of the first amendment, I say that that is simply a
red herring, Mr. President. And you don't have to take my word for it.
Constitutional scholars from Stanford Law to Georgia Law to Loyola Law
to Vanderbilt Law have endorsed the approach that is now part of this
legislation.
If anything, Mr. President, this provision underscores first
amendment rights for union members and shareholders by protecting them
from having their money used for electioneering ads they may not agree
with, while maintaining the right of labor and corporate management to
speak through PACs.
This is a sensible, reasonable approach to addressing a burgeoning
segment of electioneering that is making a mockery of our campaign
finance system. How can anyone not be for disclosure? How can anyone
say that less information for the public leads to better elections?
Don't the American people have the right to know who is paying for
these stealth advocacy ads, and how much?
This problem is not going to go away, Mr. President. The year 1996
marked a turning point in American elections--make no mistake about it.
The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania
published a report this year on so-called issue advertising during the
1996 elections, and if any member of the Senate hasn't read it I
recommend you get hold of a copy.
As this first chart demonstrates, the report finds that, during the
1996 elections, anywhere from $135 million to $150 million was spent by
third-party organizations in the 1996 election on radio and TV ads.
This totals almost one-third of the amount of money that was spent in
the election; $400 million was spent by all candidates for President,
U.S. Senate, and the House, but other organizations spent a third of
all of the money that was spent in the last election.
Then chart two, if there is any doubt about the intent of these ads,
indicates, according to the Annenberg Report, that in a study of 109
ads that were supported by 29 different organizations, almost 87
percent of those so-called issue ads referred to a candidate, and 41
percent of those issue ads were identified by the public as being
``attack ads''--41 percent. Almost 87 percent of these so-called issue
ads identified a candidate. That is the highest percentage recorded
among a group that also included Presidential ads, debates, free-time
segments, and news program organizations.
Clearly, these ads were overtly aimed at electing or defeating
targeted candidates, but under current law they aren't even subject to
disclosure requirements. We are only talking about those individuals
who provide $500 or more to an organization that runs ads identifying a
candidate 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general
election.
But let's look at the ads that I am talking about. Again, we are
talking about stealth advocacy ads. First, you get the ``True Issue
Ad,'' according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which says that
``McCain-Feingold would have no impact on True Issue Ads.'' It says
here that it is ``A True Issue Ad.'' It says:
This election year, America's children need your vote. Our
public schools are our children's ticket to the future. But
education has become just another target for attack by
politicians who want huge cuts in education programs. They're
making the wrong choices. Our children deserve leaders who
will strengthen public education, not attack it. They deserve
the best education we can give them. So this year, vote as if
your children's future depends on it. It does.
That is a true issue ad.
Look at chart four. This is what I call a ``Stealth Advocacy Ad.''
This is what McCain-Feingold would define as ``Electioneering
Communications.''
That is totally permissible under any of the rulings that have been
made and
[[Page S10150]]
rendered by the Supreme Court, because those distinctions can be made
between electioneering and between constitutionally permitted freedom
of speech.
This is a stealth advocacy ad:
Mr. X promised he'd be different. But he's just another
Washington politician. Why, during the last year alone he has
taken over $260,000 from corporate special interest groups. .
. . But is he listening to us anymore?
That identifies a candidate.
I defy anyone to tell me with a straight face that the intent of this
stealth advocacy ad is anything other than to advocate for the defeat
of candidate X. That is the kind of ad that is covered by the McCain-
Feingold measure.
Let me tell you something. This ad could still run. Any group in
America can run any ad that they want before the election identifying a
candidate. But the fact is it would require disclosure of those donors
who provide more than $500 to that organization, if these ads run 30
days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. And the
money could not be funded by unions or corporations through their
treasuries. If they want to finance these ads, by unions or
corporations, they will have to do so by a PAC, if these ads run 30
days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
So what are we talking about? Disclosure. That is what we are talking
about. And 87 percent of these issue ads, these so-called issue ads,
are what I would call stealth advocacy ads, because they identify a
candidate but we don't know who finances these ads. This, on the other
hand, is a true issue ad. It doesn't identify a candidate. Groups can
run ads saying: ``Call your Senator. Call your Member of Congress.''
They don't have to identify the candidate. But if they do, it requires
disclosure of their major donors.
Mr. President, we are accountable to the people. We are required as
candidates for office to file disclosure forms as candidates. PACs are
required to disclose. But hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on
these ads without one dime being reported--not one dime. And I remind
you that one-third of the money that was spent in the last election, in
1996, was spent by organizations that did not have to disclose one
dime. And there is no reason to think it will not get worse.
You do not need a crystal ball. Just look at some of the special
elections this year. For example, it has been widely reported that just
one group spent $200,000 on special election TV commercials. We don't
have the total of exactly how much was spent overall, because there is
currently no accountability, no disclosure. That is what the McCain-
Feingold legislation is addressing.
And think about this. Overall, national party committees raised over
$115 million in soft money during the first 18 months of the 1997-1998
election cycle, the most money ever on a nonpresidential election
cycle. Total soft money contributions to both Democrats and Republicans
have more than doubled during the past 4 years. In fact, soft money
contributions to national party committees have grown by 131 percent
from the first 18 months of the 1993-1994 election cycle compared to
the same period in this 1997-1998 election cycle--grown 131 percent.
Enough is enough. I have said before that it is the duty of leaders
to lead, and that means making some difficult choices. I know this is
not an easy vote. It requires looking at ourselves and asking what is
important, protecting the status quo, or is it protecting the integrity
of our system of elections?
How we choose our elected officials goes to the heart of who we are
as a nation. It defines us as a country and it defines whether or not
we will continue to maintain the integrity of this process. But there
is a very great danger that if we do nothing, if we shroud ourselves in
the rhetoric of absolutism, if we turn our backs on a monumental
opportunity that we now have, then our mantle of greatness will decay
from the inside, because if the American people lose faith in the
system that elects our public officials, they have lost faith in the
integrity of Government itself, and we cannot allow this to happen. We
cannot preside over this disintegration of public trust.
Eight votes stand between us and a reform bill. Eight votes stand
between us and the passage of the McCain-Feingold legislation. After
two tries in the Senate, the labyrinthian parliamentary procedure,
hundreds of amendments, and a ``Queen of the Hill'' contest in the
House, all that is holding back a reform bill this year is eight
Senators. This is our chance, my friends, and I implore my colleagues
to seize this historic opportunity. After this vote, there will be no
doubt who stands four square behind fair, sensible, meaningful reform
and who does not.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding me the
time and for his leadership and his commitment.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Brennan Center for Justice
at NYU School of Law,
New York, NY, February 20, 1998.
Re NRLC objections to the Snowe-Jeffords amendment.
Dear Senator: We write to rebut letters from the National
Right to Life Committee (NRLC), dated February 17 and
February 20, 1998, in opposition to the Snowe-Jeffords
Amendment to the McCain-Feingold Bill. NRLC mischaracterizes
what the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment would achieve and
misrepresents constitutional doctrine. The Amendment would
not restrict the ability of advocacy groups such as NRLC to
engage in either issue advocacy or electioneering. But it
would prevent them from (1) hiding from the public the
amounts they spend on the most blatant form of
electioneering; (2) keeping secret the identities of those
who bankroll their electioneering messages with large
contributions; and (3) funneling funds from business
corporations and labor unions into electioneering. These
goals, and the means used to achieve them, are
constitutionally permissible.
What the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment Would Do
The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment applies only to advertisements
that constitute the most blatant form of electioneering. If
an ad does not satisfy every one of the following criteria,
none of the restrictions or disclosure rules of the Snowe-
Jeffords Amendment would be triggered: Medium: The ad must be
broadcast on radio or television. Timing: The ad must be
aired shortly before an election--within 60 days before a
general election (or special election) or 30 days before a
primary. Candidate-Specific: The ad must mention a
candidate's name or identify the candidate clearly.
Targeting: The ad must be targeted at voters in the
candidate's state. Threshold: The sponsor of the ad must
spend more than $10,000 on such electioneering ads in the
calendar year.
If, and only if, an electioneering ad meets all of the
foregoing criteria, do the following rules apply:
Restriction: The electioneering ad cannot be paid for
directly or indirectly by funds from a business corporation
or labor union. Individuals, PACs, and most nonprofits can
engage in unlimited advocacy or the sort covered by the
Snowe-Jeffords Amendment. The Amendment would prohibit these
advocacy groups from financing their electioneering ads with
funds from business corporations or labor unions. Since it is
already illegal for business corporations and labor unions to
engage in electioneering, these limitations are intended to
prevent evasion of otherwise valid federal restrictions.
Disclosure: The sponsor of an electioneering ad must
disclose the amount spent and the identity of contributors
who donated more than $500 toward the ad. This requirement is
necessary to prevent contributors from evading federal
reporting requirements by funneling contributions intended to
influence the outcome of an election through advocacy groups.
the nrlc's misrepresentations about the snowe-jeffords amendment
The NRLC has so completely distorted the effect of the
Snowe-Jeffords Amendment with false and misleading
allegations that it is important at the outset to set the
record straight.
The Amendment would not prohibit groups such as NRLC from
disseminating electioneering communications. Instead, it
would merely require the NRLC to disclose how much it is
spending on electioneering broadcasts and who is bankrolling
them.
The Amendment would not prohibit NRLC and others from
accepting corporate or labor funds. If it wished to accept
corporate or labor funds, it would simply have to take steps
to ensure that those funds could not be spent on blatant
electioneering messages.
NRLC and similar organizations would not have to create a
PAC or other separate entity in order to engage in the types
of electioneering covered by the Amendment. Rather, they
would simply have to deposit the money they receive from
corporations and unions (or other restricted sources) into
separate bank accounts.
The Amendment would not bar or require disclosure of
communications by print media, direct mail, or other non-
broadcast modes of communication. NRLC and similar advocacy
groups would be able to organize their members or communicate
with the public at large through mass communications such as
newspaper advertisements, mass mailings, voter guides, or
billboards, to
[[Page S10151]]
the same extent currently permitted by law. There is no
provision in the current version of the Snowe-Jeffords
Amendment that changes any of the rules regarding those non-
broadcast forms of communication.
The Amendment would not affect the ability of any
organization to ``urge grassroots contacts with lawmakers
regarding an upcoming vote in Congress.'' The Amendment
has no effect on a broadcast directing the public, for
example, to ``Urge your congressman and senator to vote
against [`or in favor of'] the McCain-Feingold bill.'' The
sponsor could even give the telephone number for the
audience to call. And the ad would be free fom all the
Amendment's new disclosure rules and source rules--even if
the ad is run the day before the election. By simply
declining to name ``Congressman X'' or ``Senator Y,''
whose election is imminent and the outcome of which NRLC
presumably does not intend to affect, NRLC could run its
issue ad free from both the minimal disclosure rules and
the prohibition on use of business and union funds.
The Amendment's disclosure rules do not require invasive
disclosure of all donors. They require disclosure only of
those donors who pay more than $500 to the account that funds
the ad.
The Amendment would not require advance disclosure of the
contents of an ad. It would require disclosure only of the
amount spent, the sources of the money, and the identity of
the candidate whose election is targeted.
Basic Constitutional Principles
NRLC is simply mistaken in suggesting that the minimal
disclosure rules and the restrictions on corporate and union
electioneering contained in the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment are
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear that, for
constitutional purposes, electioneering is different from
other speech. See FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479
U.S. 238, 249 (1986). Congress has the power to enact
campaign finance laws that constrain the spending of money on
electioneering in a variety of ways, even though spending on
other forms of political speech is entitled to absolute First
Amendment protection. See generally Buckley v. Valeo, 424
U.S. 1 (1976). Congress is permitted to demand that the
sponsor of an electioneering message disclose the amount
spent on the message and the sources of the funds. And
Congress may prohibit corporations and labor unions from
spending money on electioneering. This is black letter
constitutional law about which there can be no serious
dispute.
There are, of course, limits to Congress's power to
regulate election-related spending. But there are two
contexts in which the Supreme Court has granted Congress
freer reign to regulate. First, Congress has broader latitude
to require disclosure of election-related spending than it
does to restrict such spending. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 67-
68. In Buckley, the Court declared that the governmental
interests that justify disclosure of election-related
spending are considerably broader and more powerful than
those justifying prohibitions or restrictions on election-
related spending. Disclosure rules, the Court opined, in
contrast to spending restrictions or contribution limits,
enhance the information available to the voting public. Plus,
the burdens on free speech rights are far less significant
when Congress requires disclosure of a particular type of
spending than when it prohibits the spending outright or
limits the funds that support the speech. Disclosure rules,
according to the Court, are ``the least restrictive means of
curbing the evils of campaign ignorance and corruption.''
Thus, even if certain political advertisement cannot be
prohibited or otherwise regulated, the speaker might still be
required to disclose the funding sources for those ads if the
governmental justification is sufficiently strong.
Second, Congress has a long record, which has been
sustained by the Supreme Court, of imposing more onerous
spending restrictions on corporations and labor unions than
on individuals, political action committees, and
associations. Since 1907, federal law has banned corporations
from engaging in electioneering. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441b(a).
In 1947, that ban was extended to prohibit unions from
electioneering as well. Id. As the Supreme Court has pointed
out, Congress banned corporate and union contributions in
order ``to avoid the deleterious influences on federal
elections resulting from the use of money by those who
exercise control over large aggregations of capital.'' United
States v. UAW, 352 U.S. 567, 585 (1957). As recently as 1990,
the Court reaffirmed this rationale. See Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce, 491 U.S. 652 (1990); FEC v. National
Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197 (1982). The Court
emphasized that it is perfectly constitutional for the state
to limit the electoral participation of corporations because
``[s]tate law grants [them] special advantages--such as
limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of
the accumulation of and distribution of assets,'' Austin, 491
U.S. at 658-59. Having provided these advantages to
corporations, particularly business corporations, the state
has no obligation to ``permit them to use `resources amassed
in the economic marketplace' to obtain `an unfair advantage
in the political marketplace.'' (quoting, MCFL, 479 U.S. at
257).
The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment builds upon these bedrock
principles, extending current regulation cautiously and only
in the areas in which the First Amendment protection is at
its lowest ebb.
Congress Is Not Stuck with ``Magic Words''
The Supreme Court has never held that there is only a
single constitutionally permissible route a legislature may
take when it defines ``electioneering'' to be regulated or
reported. The Court has not prescribed certain ``magic
words'' that are regulable and placed all other
electioneering beyond the reach of any campaign finance
regulation. NRLC's argument to the contrary is based on a
fundamental misreading of the Supreme Court's opinion in
Buckley v. Valeo.
In Buckley, the Supreme Court reviewed the
constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA). One section of FECA imposed a $1,000 limit on
expenditures ``relative to a clearly identified candidate,''
and another section imposed reporting requirements for
independent expenditures of over $100 ``for the purpose of
influencing'' a federal election. The Court concluded that
these regulations ran afoul of two constitutional doctrines--
vagueness and overbreadth--that pervade First Amendment
jurisprudence.
The vagueness doctrine demands precise definitions. Before
the government punishes someone--especially for speech--it
must articulate with sufficient precision what conduct is
legal and what is illegal. A vague or imprecise definition of
electioneering might ``chill'' some political speakers who,
although they desire to engage in discussions of political
issues, may fear that their speech could be punished.
Even if a regulation is articulated with great clarity, it
may still be struck as overbroad. A restriction that covers
regulable speech (and does so clearly) can be struck if it
sweeps too broadly and covers a substantial amount of
constitutionally protected speech as well. But under
the overbreadth doctrine, the provision will be upheld
unless its overbreadth is substantial. A challenger cannot
topple a statute simply by conjuring up a handful of
applications that would yield unconstitutional results.
Given these two doctrines, it is plain why FECA's clumsy
provisions troubled the Court. Any communication that so much
as mentions a candidate--any time and in any context--could
be said to be ``relative to'' the candidate. And it is
difficult to predict what might ``influence'' a federal
election.
The Supreme Court could have simply struck FECA, leaving it
to Congress to develop a narrower and more precise definition
of electioneering. Instead, the Court intervened by
essentially rewriting Congress's handiwork itself. In order
to avoid the vagueness and overbreadth problems, the Court
interpreted FECA to reach only funds used for communications
that ``expressly advocate'' the election or defeat of a
clearly identified candidate. In an important footnote, the
Court provided some guidance on how to decide whether a
communication meets that description. The Court stated that
its revision of FECA would limit the reach of the statute
``to communications containing express words of advocacy of
election or defeat, such as `vote for,' `elect,' `support,'
`cast your ballot for,' `Smith for Congress,' `vote against,'
`defeat,' `reject.' '' Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44 n.52.
But the Court emphatically did not declare that all
legislatures were stuck with these magic words, or words like
them, for all time. To the contrary, Congress has the power
to enact a statute that defines electioneering in a more
nuanced manner, as long as its definition adequately
addresses the vagueness and overbreadth concerns expressed by
the Court.
Any more restrictive reading of the Supreme Court's opinion
would be fundamentally at odds with the rest of the Supreme
Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. Countless other
contexts--including libel, obscenity, fighting words, and
labor elections--call for delicate line drawing between
protected speech and speech that may be regulated. In none of
these cases has the Court adopted a simplistic bright-line
approach. For example, in libel cases, an area of core First
Amendment concern, the Court has rejected the simple bright-
line approach of imposing liability based on the truth or
falsity of the statement published. Instead the Court has
prescribed an analysis that examines, among other things,
whether the speaker acted with reckless disregard for the
truth of falsity of the statement and whether a reasonable
reader would perceive the statement as stating actual facts
or merely rhetorical hyperbole. See, e.g., Milkovich v.
Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 14-17 (1990). Similarly, in
the context of union representation elections, employers are
permitted to make ``predictions'' about the consequences of
unionizing but they may not issue ``threats.'' The courts
have developed an extensive jurisprudence to distinguish
between the two categories, yet the fact remains that an
employer could harbor considerable uncertainty as to whether
or not the words he is about to utter are sanctionable. The
courts are comfortable with the uncertainty of these tests
because they have provided certain concrete guidelines.
In no area of First Amendment jurisprudence has the Court
mandated a mechanical test that ignores either the context of
the speech at issue or the purpose underlying the regulatory
scheme. In no area of First Amendment jurisprudence has the
Court held that the only constitutionally permissible test is
one that would render the underlying regulatory scheme
unenforceable. It is doubtful, therefore, that the Supreme
Court
no...@senate.gov
[[Page S10152]]
in Buckley intended to single out election regulations as
requiring a mechanical, formulaic, and utterly unworkable
test.
The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment's Prohibition is Precise and Narrow
The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment presents a definition of
electioneering carefully crafted to address the Supreme
Court's dual concerns regarding vagueness and overbreadth.
Because the test for prohibited electioneering is defined
with great clarity, it satisfies the Supreme Court's
vagueness concerns. Any sponsor of a broadcast will know,
with absolute certainty, whether the ad depicts or names a
candidate, how many days before an election it is being
broadcast, and what audience is targeted. There is little
danger that a sponsor would mistakenly censor its own
protected speech out of fear of prosecution under such a
clear standard.
The prohibition is also so narrow that it easily satisfies
the Supreme Court's overbreadth concerns. Any speech
encompassed by the prohibition is plainly intended to
convince voters to vote for or against a particular
candidate. A sponsor who wishes simply to inform the public
at large about an issue immediately before an election could
readily do so without mentioning a specific candidate and
without targeting the message to the specific voters who
happen to be eligible to vote for that candidate. It is
virtually impossible to imagine an example of a broadcast
that satisfies this definition even though it was not
intended to influence the election in a direct and
substantial way. Though a fertile image might conjure up a
few counter-examples, the would not make the law
substantially overbroad.
The careful crafting of the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment stands
in stark contrast to the clumsy and sweeping prohibition that
Congress originally drafted in FECA. Unlike the FECA
definition of electioneering, the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment
would withstand constitutional challenge without having to
resort to the device of narrowing the statute with magic
words. Congress could, if it wished, apply the basic rules
that currently govern electioneering to all spending that
falls within this more realistic definition of
electioneering. Congress could, for example, declare that
only individuals and PACs (and the most grassroots of
nonprofit corporations) could engage in electioneering that
falls within this broadened definition. It could impose
fundraising restrictions, prohibiting individuals from
pooling large contributions toward such electioneering.
But, of course, the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment does not go
that far. The flat prohibition applies not to advocacy groups
like NRLC, but only to business corporations and labor
unions--and to the sorts of nonprofits that are already
severely limited in their ability to lobby. The expansion in
the definition of electioneering will not constrain NRLC from
engaging in grassroots advocacy or spending the money it
raises from its members for electioneering purposes. An
individual, any other group of individuals, an association,
and most nonprofit corporations can spend unlimited funds on
electioneering that falls within the expanded definition and
can raise funds in unlimited amounts, so long as they take
care to insulate the funds they use on electioneering from
funds they collect from business corporations, labor unions,
or business activities. Since all corporations and labor
unions receive reduced First Amendment protection in the
electioneering context--remember. they can be flatly barred
from electioneering at all--the application of the new
prohibition only to labor unions and certain types of
corporation is certainly constitutional.
the extended disclosure requirement
NRLC incorrectly argues that the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment's
disclosure requirements infringe on the public's First
Amendment right to engage in secret electioneering. In short,
there is not such right. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Commission, 115 S. Ct. 1511 (1995), the Court was careful to
distinguish the anonymous pamphleteering against a referendum
at issue in that case from the disclosure rules governing
electioneering for or against a particular candidate for
office that were permitted in Buckley. Similarly, NRLC
improperly relies on NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958),
which recognizes a limited right of anonymity for groups that
have a legitimate fear of reprisal if their membership lists
or donors are publicly disclosed. NRLC, like any other group,
may be entitled to an exemption from electioneering
disclosure laws if it can demonstrate a reasonable
probability that compelled disclosure will subject its
members to threats, harassment, or reprisals. See McIntyre,
112 S. Ct. at 1524 n.21. But the need for these kinds of
limited exceptions certainly do not make the general
disclosure rules contained in Snowe-Jeffords
unconstitutional.
Since the new prohibition in the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment
does not apply to the funds of individuals, associations, or
most nonprofit corporations, the First Amendment implications
for them are diminished. They will simply be required to
report their spending on speech that falls within the
broadened definition of electioneering, just as they
currently must report the sources and amounts of their
independent expenditures. They would be required to disclose
the cost of the advertisement, a description of how the money
was spent, and the names of individuals who contributed more
than $500 towards the ad. Contrary to the NRLC's claim, they
will never be required to disclose in advance any ad copy
that they intend to air.
The overbreadth and vagueness rules are particularly strict
when applied to rules that restrict speech--such as the
aspect of the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment that bars business
corporations and labor unions from spending any funds on
electioneering. But, as the Supreme Court has observed,
disclosure rules do not restrict speech significantly.
Disclosure rules do not limit the information that is
conveyed to the electorate. To the contrary, they increase
the flow of information. For that reason, the Supreme Court
has made clear that rules requiring disclosure are subject to
less exacting constitutional strictures than direct
prohibitions on spending. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 68. There
is no constitutional bar to expanding the disclosure rules to
provide accurate information to voters about the sponsors of
ads indisputably designed to influence their vote.
conclusion
The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment is a sensitive and sensible
approach to regulating spending that has made a mockery of
federal campaign finance laws. It regulates in the two
contexts--corporate and union spending and disclosure rules--
in which the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of
regulation. The provisions are sufficiently clear to oversome
claims of unconstitutional vagueness and sufficiently narrow
to allay overbreadth concerns. The Amendment will not
restrict the ability of advocacy groups such as NRLC to
engage in either issue advocacy or electioneering, but it
will subject their electioneering spending to federal
disclosure requirements, which is constitutionally
permissible.
Respectfully submitted,
Burt Neuborne,
John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, NYU School of Law.
Norman Ornstein,
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Daniel R. Ortiz,
John Allan Love Professor of Law, University of Virginia
School of Law.
E. Joshua Rosenkranz,
Executive Director, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU
School of Law.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator McConnell, and I thank all Members of
the body for this excellent debate on a very important issue. I suggest
that there are different views about what is noble and fair and of the
highest order. A jurist at one time said that to talk of justice is the
equivalent of pounding on the table; everybody seems to say that their
view is just and fair and wonderful. But I think there are a lot of
competing principles here, and I would just like to share a few
comments on this subject.
I ran in a Republican primary, had seven opponents, two of whom spent
over $1 million of their own money, and the total that those seven
opponents spent was some $5 million. My opponent in the general
election spent about $3 million, the Democratic nominee. But when you
figure it on 4 million people in Alabama, that is about $2 per voter.
A number of the expenditures--and it irritated me at the time--were
these stealth advocacy ads that have been referred to. Groups ran ads
that tried to claim they were advocacy ads but in fact were aimed at me
and trying to drive my numbers down and to help their candidate get
elected. It irritated me, and when I got here I was irritated with some
of the campaign laws. It struck me as somewhat unfair that a man could
spend $1 million but I could not ask anybody for more than $1,000. So I
was pretty open to reviewing that.
Since I have been here and had the time to do a little thinking about
it, talking with Senator McConnell and others, I have become pretty
well convinced that we do not need to deregulate the institutional
media, allow them to run free doing whatever they want to, and just
tell groups of people, even if I don't agree with them, they can't come
together, peaceably assemble and raise money and petition their
Government.
That is a fundamental first amendment principle. The right to
assemble
[[Page S10153]]
peaceably and petition your Government for grievances is a right that
is protected by our Constitution. In no way can we abridge freedom of
speech. We have a number of cases dealing with that.
The particular Snowe-Jeffords amendment that we talked about has been
touched upon in a famous case from Alabama. NAACP v. Alabama, in 1958,
clearly established that groups have a right to assemble and they do
not have to reveal the names of individuals who have contributed to
them.
They said: Well, we don't want to demand that of everybody, just if
you run a campaign ad 60 days in front of a general election. Only then
do we want to know who gave you money; only then do we abridge your
right to free speech, because we are abridging it by saying you can't
express yourself unless you tell who gave money to your organization
only within 60 days of the election. That is the only time we want to
do it.
So, Mr. President, I would ask, when do you want to speak out? When
do people become concerned and energized about issues? I believe in my
State, for example, that we had abuse of the laws of Alabama, and we
had too many lawsuits and uncontrolled verdicts, and we needed tort
reform. The trial lawyers of Alabama are a very aggressive group. A
small group of them contribute huge sums of money. I saw recently where
about seven plaintiff law firms, relatively small law firms, had given
some $4 million to political campaigns in the last cycle. They spent $1
million--some of these were stealth advocacy ads aimed at me. They ran
one ad against a Supreme Court Justice, the skunk ad that was voted the
dirtiest ad in America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator 2 more minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
We have a robust democracy. People have their say. I am inclined to
think this obsession with eliminating the ability of people to speak
out freely in an election cycle is unwise. It does threaten the robust
nature of this democracy.
I recall last year we had 30 Members here who voted to amend the
first amendment to the Constitution so they could pass this kind of
legislation.
I think at least they were honest enough to propose a constitutional
amendment to amend the first amendment, which I thought was stunning.
But at any rate, my time has expired. I just wanted to share those
comments. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL. If I could just thank the Senator from Alabama for his
important contribution to this debate, he is a distinguished lawyer,
well versed in the first amendment. I think his points were very, very
well made, and I just wanted to thank him for his contribution to this
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield up to 5 minutes to another of our tremendous
cosponsors and supporters of this legislation, the distinguished
Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the
amendment being offered by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold to
motivate the Senate and conclude action on campaign finance reform
legislation.
Before I proceed, I would like to point something out about the
decision the Senator from Alabama referenced to defend nondisclosure.
The Supreme Court in that case said if the people were threatened with
bodily injury or death, they did not have to disclose their names. That
is hardly, I hope, the case that we have here. I hope people would not
rely upon that Alabama decision to say that the present procedure that
we have here, allowing people to hide themselves behind their ads, is
legitimized by that decision.
I also thank the Senator from Maine, who worked very strenuously on
this amendment with respect to disclosure. To me, it is incredible to
think anybody can object to what we are suggesting, which is that if
people put something on the air obviously aimed at candidates, we ought
to know who they are. I just cannot understand how anybody can take the
position that is a violation of the freedom of speech.
Also, let me congratulate the House of Representatives for passing
campaign finance reform legislation shortly before the August break.
This was a first step toward achieving our mutual goal of having a
campaign finance system that is fair and equitable. Such a system
should ensure that the electorate is fully informed and that the pool
of potential candidates is not limited by financial barriers.
Earlier this year we fell eight votes short of passing the McCain/
Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. During consideration of
this bill an important amendment offered by Senator Snowe and I was
adopted, and I am pleased that Senators McCain and Feingold have
included this language in the amendment we are considering today. I
think it is a critical amendment. The willingness of my colleagues to
include this language and the leadership of the Vermont legislature on
this issue last year has convinced me that it is time to move forward
and pass this amendment.
The McCain-Feingold amendment with the Jeffords-Snowe language boosts
disclosure requirements and tightens expenditures of certain funds in
the weeks preceding a primary and general election. The last few
election cycles have shown that spending has grown astronomically in
two areas that cause me great concern. First, issue ads that have
turned into blatant electioneering. Second, the unfettered spending by
corporations and unions to influence the outcome of an election. This
amendment with the Jeffords-Snowe language addresses these areas in a
reasonable, equitable and last but not least, constitutional way.
Mr. President, reform of the campaign finance system is long overdue.
The litany of problems and short comings of our current system is long
and well known, but the full Congress has so far been reluctant to act.
Since my election to the House in the wake of the Watergate scandal,
I have worked with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform
legislation that could endure the legislative process and survive a
constitutional challenge. We came close in 1994, and I believe
circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful campaign
finance reform during this Congress. This belief has only been
strengthened by the recent actions taken by the House.
The Senate is known for its ability to have full and complete debates
on any issue, and campaign finance should be no different, but debate
on this important topic should eventually reach an end. We may not
agree on the solution, but we must move forward, debate the issue and
ultimately reach a conclusion. Let the process run its course, let
Senators offer their amendments and get their votes. But, in the end
let the Senate complete consideration of this issue.
Mr. President, if Mark McGwire can hit 62 home-runs, Congress can
surely pass this important legislation and hit one home-run for cleaner
campaign financing. I remain hopeful that my colleagues will join me in
allowing the Senate to conclude debate on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the First Amendment to the Constitution
mandates that Congress shall make no laws which abridge the freedom of
speech. The freedom to engage in political speech is the bedrock of our
democracy. We may not like what people say when they exercise their
First Amendment rights, but this Senator acknowledges that everyone has
the right to engage in political speech.
This bill places unconstitutional limits on the First Amendment
rights of individuals, groups and even unions. The bill creates a rule
which virtually prohibits any political ads by individuals, groups and
unions which mention specific candidates within 60 days of an election.
That would serve to muzzle political speech at the most critical time
during a campaign. Not only is this unconstitutional, it is bad policy,
because it will only serve to make the media more powerful.
I have examined the provisions in this bill very carefully, and even
on the slightest chance the Supreme Court
[[Page S10154]]
would find these provisions constitutional, I ask my fellow Senators:
is this good policy?
The reason I ask this question is that, in my view, when you muzzle
the political speech of individuals and groups, whose voice will then
carry the day?
In our zeal on both sides of the aisle to address the role of certain
entities in our elections, we need to ask ourselves: what will be the
consequence of restricting the free speech rights of unions,
corporations and wealthy individuals to engage in campaign-related
speech? In my mind, by restricting freedom of speech for these groups,
we will make the media an even more powerful player in the political
process.
During the 60 days prior to the election when the so called bright
line rule is in effect, the only one who will be able to speak directly
about the candidates will be the news media.
We all know the saying around Washington: ``you shouldn't pick a
fight with someone who buys paper by the ton and ink by the barrel.''
Because it enjoys the full protection of the First Amendment, we call
the media the Fourth Estate, or the Unofficial Fourth Branch of
government. The media are the ``Big Opinion Makers''--they write the
editorials, present the news and decide which issues deserve the
attention of the American people on a daily basis.
We also know that members of the media are only human--and by that I
mean that they are opinionated. Their opinion tends to lean in favor of
a liberal, Democrat agenda. Recent surveys have shown that close to 90
percent of the media votes for liberal Democrat candidates. What of
their independence? What about their role in the election of federal
officials?
Thomas Jefferson once wrote: There are rights which it is useless to
surrender to the government, but which rights governments always have
sought to invade. Among these are the rights of speaking and publishing
our thoughts.
This bill is a giant step toward Congress invading the rights of many
to engage in political discourse and surrendering those rights to the
media. In my view, you can choose McCain/Feingold or you can choose the
First Amendment. I choose the First Amendment. Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the
time, and particularly for the effort and information that he has
participated in giving during this debate.
I am interested in the fact that our fellow Senators talk about
having a discussion. How long are we going to discuss this? It seems
like we have been through this every year. We have been through it
three times last year; we have been through it the second time this
year. I can hardly imagine that anyone can make a case that we have not
had a chance to talk about this issue.
As a matter of fact, frankly, I just think we have a lot of things to
do in the next 3 weeks. I hope we focus on doing those things and not
continue to repeat and discuss the same things that we have done
before. This subject had three failed cloture votes in 1997. This is
the second cloture vote in 1998. We had the opportunity to talk about
this, and under the system in the Senate which we all use, this issue
has failed to be approved. Frankly, I think it will be one more time. I
heard earlier that this is something that everybody in the country is
clinging to and wanting to have resolved. I have not seen that. Where
people are asked to list the things that are most important to them,
where do you see this on the list? If at all, on the bottom.
I think the fact is times have changed. The fact is we do spend more
money, perhaps too much money, but we want people to vote. We believe
they should be educated, and if you do that, you do that through the
public media, which is expensive. So we are changing those things a
great deal.
What puzzles me a great deal--and I am not here to talk about the
details; others are much more familiar with them than am I--but we find
ourselves with the dilemma of having a campaign finance law in place
now that we seem to be unable or unwilling to enforce, and in fact what
do we want to do? We want to have more laws put on top of the ones that
we are not willing to enforce now. That seems to be a real difficult
thing for me to understand.
I think it would be a mistake to pile more bureaucracy, more new laws
on top of the ones that we have, and then say to ourselves, ``Look at
all the things that were illegally done in 1997 or 1996.'' We haven't
enforced the laws that we have. It is strange to me there is a pitch
for making more laws until we do that.
I will not take much time. I do think there ought to be some changes.
I certainly support the idea of strengthening and enforcing disclosure.
I think disclosure ought to be there prior to the election, and I am
for that. I would even probably support the amount of soft money that
can be contributed. But I am also quick to understand that there are
lots of ways to do it, and laws simply do not have the effect that
sometimes we think they should.
So, I think most everything has been said here, but I did want to
rise to say that the notion if you are not for this somehow you don't
care about elections, somehow you don't care about voting, that is not
true. That is not at all true. All of us want to have an open
declaration of spending. We want to have disclosure. We also want to
have people have the opportunity to participate as fully as they choose
under the first amendment, and there are some restrictions in here.
So, we will continue to talk about this, I presume. But McCain-
Feingold is not the answer, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that I
don't care about elections, because I do care about them, and so do all
of us. That allegation is simply not true.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the time.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Wyoming
for coming over and participating in the debate and for his insightful
observations.
Seeing no speakers on the other side, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished junior Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky, and I
rise in opposition to the McCain-Feingold amendment to the Interior
appropriations bill. Rather than ``reform'' the way campaigns are
financed, this amendment would infringe on the first amendment rights
of millions of American citizens and place enormous burdens on
candidates running for office, and one of our primary obligations here
is to preserve the Constitution of the United States.
While the McCain-Feingold amendment claims to ``clean up'' elections,
it does so by placing unconstitutional restrictions on citizens'
ability to participate in the political process. We have heard several
Members of the Senate bemoan the fact that various citizen groups and
individuals have taken out ads criticizing them during their elections.
I must admit that I can sympathize with my colleagues who have been
the object of often pointed and critical campaign ads. In fact, during
my last campaign, some ads were aired against me that were downright
false. I do support truth in advertising. Even that, I am told, is an
infringement on freedom of speech, and the Washington Supreme Court
just ruled that it is OK to lie in campaign advertising.
How do you counter that? During my campaign, my opponent ran a series
of ads that said I put a tax on Girl Scout cookies. Fortunately, Girl
Scout cookies were delivered during the campaign, and those poor little
girls had to say, ``No, he didn't put a sales tax on Girl Scout
cookies.'' Had it not been for the delivery of those cookies, I would
have had to find a lot of money to counter the false advertising done
against me. If we can't get truth in advertising, we don't have
campaign reform, and that is an infringement on freedom of speech.
At the same time, I believe in a free society it is essential that
citizens have a right to articulate their positions on issues and
candidates in a public forum. The first amendment to our Constitution
was drafted to ensure
[[Page S10155]]
that future generations will have the right to engage in public
political discourse that is vigorous and unfettered. Throughout even
the darkest chapters of our Nation's history, our first amendment has
provided an essential protection against inclinations to tyranny.
The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the first amendment to
protect the right of individual citizens and organizations to express
their views through issue advocacy. The Court has maintained for over
two decades that individuals and organizations do not fall within the
restrictions of the Federal election code simply by engaging in this
advocacy.
Issue advocacy includes the right to promote any candidate for office
and his views as long as the communication does not ``in express terms
advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.'' As
long as independent communication does not cross the bright line of
expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, individuals
and groups are free to spend as much as they want promoting or
criticizing a candidate and his or her views. While these holdings may
not always be welcome to those of us running in campaigns, they
represent a logical outgrowth of the first amendment's historic
protection of core political speech.
Mr. President, this amendment, which parades under the disguise of
``reform,'' would violate these clear first amendment protections. The
amendment impermissibly expands the definition of ``express advocacy''
to cover a whole host of communications by independent organizations.
The McCain-Feingold amendment attempts to expand bright-line tests for
issue advocacy to include communications which, ``in context,''
advocate election or defeat of a given candidate.
Are we comfortable with giving a Federal regulatory agency the power
to determine what constitutes acceptable political speech--a Federal
regulatory agency the power to determine what constitutes acceptable
political speech?
This amendment gives expansive new powers to the Federal Election
Commission. This is one Federal agency which has abused the power it
already has to regulate Federal elections. Just last year, the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals strongly criticized the Federal Election
Commission for its ``unsupportable'' enforcement action against the
Christian Action Network. The network's only crime was engaging in
protected political speech. The Court of Appeals required the Federal
Election Commission to pay the network's attorney fees and court costs
since the FEC's prosecution had been unjustified. Congress should not
condone flagrant administrative abuses by giving the FEC expanded new
powers and responsibilities.
The McCain-Feingold substitute also includes within its new
definition of ``express advocacy'' any communication that refers to one
or more clearly identified candidates within 60 calendar days preceding
an election. These provisions would allow the speech police to regulate
core political speech during the most crucial part of an election
cycle. They would also place an economic burden on thousands of small
radio and television stations which carry those ads. I don't think we
in Washington should be placing any more restrictions on America's
small businesses. Our Founding Fathers drafted the first amendment to
protect against attempts such as these to prohibit free citizens from
entering into public discourse on issues that greatly affect them.
I cannot support legislation that stifles the free speech of American
citizens and gives expanded new powers to a Federal bureaucracy. For
these reasons, I must oppose the McCain-Feingold amendment. I ask my
colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the first amendment and
opposing the McCain-Feingold substitute and any other amendment that
would unconstitutionally restrict the rights of citizens to participate
in the democratic process.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming for his
participation, once again, in what seems to be an endless debate. We
have this periodically, and I thank my colleague from Wyoming for
always coming over and making an important contribution.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 21 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on
our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one minutes, 25 seconds.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Wisconsin. I commend him and
Senator McCain and the bipartisan group that has worked so hard to pass
campaign finance reform.
A couple of nights ago, Mark McGwire hit his 62nd home run. In doing
so, he defied the odds. He warmed the hearts of Americans everywhere
with his grit, his determination, and his dedication. It was a shining
moment for American baseball and for America. Today, we should hold him
up as our example. We need to show equal grit and equal determination.
We need to hit a home run for the American people by passing campaign
finance reform.
To do that, we are going to have to defy the odds. The House did it;
they defied the odds. They passed campaign finance reform, and now the
question that we are going to face in the days ahead is whether we can.
Can the Senate rise to the occasion? Or will we go with the status quo,
continuing the demoralizing and debilitating money chase that now funds
our election campaigns and undermines public confidence in our
democracy?
Seventy-five percent of the American people want campaign finance
reform. They want limits restored on contributions, real limits. They
want the end of the loophole called the soft money loophole.
The House passed a strong bipartisan bill. The President is ready to
sign it. A majority of the Senate supports similar legislation which is
before us now. We are ready to vote to enact this legislation into law.
But instead of going to a vote on the bill, the majority leader has
instead filed a cloture motion. And what is surreal about this cloture
motion is that while a cloture motion is usually intended to be a
device to close debate on an issue, and to move to a vote, the Senators
who signed the cloture motion in this instance do not want to end
debate or go to a vote. They oppose their own petition. They hope that
the pending legislation and this issue will go away. They hope the
supporters of campaign finance reform will withdraw the bill because it
is being filibustered.
This is an inside-out filibuster. The opponents of reform want to
filibuster the reform bill without actually filibustering it. They are
hoping that if supporters do not have the 60 votes to close debate,
that the supporters will agree to withdraw their own amendment. I
believe it would be wrong to withdraw this bill because opponents are
filibustering the bill. Opponents have the right to filibuster under
our rules. They have the right to filibuster. But the supporters have
no obligation to help them succeed by agreeing to change the subject or
by agreeing to withdraw the amendment.
This is an issue of transcendent importance. Huge contributions that
come through that soft money loophole have sapped public confidence in
the electoral process. The House has acted. They did what conventional
wisdom said could not be done. They passed a bill with meaningful
campaign finance reform to close the soft money loophole. Our colleague
from Kentucky said that when the House passed reform and sent it over
here, that the bill and reform was dead on arrival, DOA. Well, it was
not. The struggle for life for campaign finance reform will be
determined by a test of wills between a bipartisan majority who support
campaign finance reform and the minority that is filibustering in
opposition to campaign finance reform.
But campaign finance reform is not dead on arrival. It is struggling
for life here on the Senate floor in a kind of a titanic struggle which
has existed with prior legislation of this importance,
[[Page S10156]]
legislation which has such meaning to the country that both its
supporters and its opponents are willing to test their strength.
Opponents filibustering, as is their right, but supporters not yielding
to that filibuster, as is our right.
So just as the House defied the odds by passing a bill, just like
Mark McGwire defied the odds by hitting home run No. 62, now it is our
turn at bat. The American public is waiting for us to step up to the
plate and to fight for campaign finance reform. And that is what our
intention is. Again, I commend the bipartisan group that has led this
effort. It is a vital effort for the well-being of democracy in this
country. It is worth fighting for.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not submit for the record the 400
campaign finance reform editorials from 196 newspapers across America
that have been published just since March 30, 1998.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of those newspapers that published editorials, 196 newspapers.
It is about a four-page document. I will not ask that the editorials be
put in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Attached are more than 400 campaign finance reform
editorials from 196 newspapers. These editorials have been
published since March 30, 1998:
Aiken Standard, Aiken, SC
Akron Beacon Journal, Akron, OH (3)
Times Union, Albany, NY
Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, NM
The Morning Call, Allentown, PA (3)
The Ann Arbor News, Ann Arbor, MI
USA Today, Arlington, VA (5)
The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, GA (3)
The Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, GA (2)
Kennebec Journal, Augusta ME
Beacon-News, Aurora, IL
Austin American-Statesman, Austin, TX (4)
The Sun, Baltimore, MD
The Bango Daily News, Bango, ME
The Times Argus, Barre, VT
The Herald-Palladium, Benton Harbor-St. Joe, MI
The Birmingham News, Birmingham, AL (2)
the Birmingham News-Post Herald, Birmingham, AL
The Boston Globe, Boston, MA (10)
Boston Herald, Boston, MA (4)
The Christian Science Monitor, Boston, MA (3)
Connecticut Post, Bridgeport, CT (4)
Bridgeton Evening News, Bridgeton, NJ
The Courier-News, Bridgewater, NJ
The Times Record, Brunswick, ME
The Buffalo News, Buffalo, NY (3)
Cadillac News, Cadillac, MI (4)
The Repository, Canton, OH (2)
The Charleston Gazette, Charleston, WV
The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, NC (2)
Chattanooga Free Press, Chattanooga, TN
The Chattanooga Times, Chattanooga, TN
Press Register, Clarksdale, MS
The Leaf-Chronicle, Clarksville, TN
The Bolivar Commercial, Cleveland, MS
The Brazosport Facts, Clute, TX
The State, Columbia, SC (2)
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, Columbus, GA
Concord Monitor, Concord, NH
The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, TX
The News-Times, Danbury, CT (5)
Dayton Daily News, Dayton, OH
Daytona Beach News Journal, Daytona, FL
The Denver Post, Denver, CO (3)
Detroit Free Press, Detroit, MI (4)
The Dubuque Telegraph Herald, Dubuque, IA
The Duncan Banner, Duncan, OK
The Home News & Tribune, East Brunswick, NJ (3)
The Express-Times, Easton, PA
The Courier News, Elgin, IL
Star-Gazette, Elmira, NY
The Evansville Press, Evansville, IN (3)
The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, IN (2)
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, TX (6)
The Middlesex News, Framingham, MA (2)
The Gainesville Sun, Gainesville, FL (5)
Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, MT
Greenville Herald-Banner, Greenville, TX
Greenwich Time, Greenwich, CT
The Greenwood Commonwealth, Greenwood, MS
The Record, Hackensack, NJ (4)
The Patriot-News, Harrisburg, PA
The Hartford Courant, Hartford, CT (10)
The Daily Review, Hayward, CA
The Times-News, Hendersonville, NC (2)
Hood River News, Hood River, OR
Houston Chronicle, Houston, TX (2)
Register-Star, Hudson, NY
The Post Register, Idaho Falls, ID
Jackson Citizen Patriot, Jackson, MI
The Clarion-Ledger, Jackson, MS (2)
The Jackson Sun, Jackson, TN (2)
The Jopin Globe, Joplin, MO
The Kansas City Star, Kansas City, MO (5)
Lake City Reporter, Lake City, FL (2)
The Ledger, Lakeland, FL (5)
The Lakeville Journal, Lakeville, CT
Las Cruces Sun-News, Las Cruces, NM
Bucks County Courier Times, Levitttown, PA
Lexington Herald Leader, Lexington, KY (5)
The Express, Lock Haven, PA
Lodi News-Sentinel, Lodi, CA
Newsday, Long Island, NY (2)
Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA (8)
The Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY (3)
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Lubbock, TX (2)
The Lufkin Daily News, Lufkin, TX
The News & Advance, Lynchburg, VA
The Capital Times, Madison, WI (3)
Journal Inquirer, Manchester, CT
The Marietta Times, Marietta, OH (2)
Chronicle-Tribune, Marion, IN
The Times Leader, Martins Ferry, OH
Enterprise-Journal, McComb, MS
The Daily News, McKeesport, PA (3)
Florida Today, Melbourne, FL (2)
The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN
Milford Daily News, Milford, MA
Millville News, Millville, NJ
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, WI
Star-Tribune, Minneapolis, MN (4)
The Macomb Daily, Mount Clemens, MI
The Muskogee Daily Phoenix & Times-Democrat, Muskogee, OK
The Sun News, Myrtle Beach, SC
The Napa Valley Register, Napa, CA
The Broadcaster, Nashua, NH
The Tennessean, Nashville, TN
The Day, New London, CT
New York Daily News, New York, NY (2)
The New York Times, New York, NY (33)
The Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ (4)
The New Jersey Herald, Newton, NJ (2)
The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, VA
The Hour, Norwalk, CT
The Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA
Ocala Star-Banner, Ocala, FL (2)
The Olympian, Olympia, WA
The Orlando Sentinel, Orlando, FL
The Paris Post-Intelligencer, Paris, TN
The Parkersburg Sentinel, Parkersburg, WV
North Jersey Herald & News, Passaic, NJ (5)
Journal Star, Peoria, IL
The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia, PA (6)
Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA (2)
The Berkshire Eagle, Pittsfield, MA
Mountain Democrat, Placerville, CA
Tri-Valley Herald, Pleasanton, CA
Port Arthur News, Port Arthur, TX (3)
Maine Sunday Telegram, Portland, ME
Portland Press Herald, Portland, ME (2)
The Oregonian, Portland, OR (4)
The News & Observer, Raleigh, NC (5)
The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA
Roanoke Times & World-News, Roanoke, VA
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, Rochester, NY
Rocky Mount Telegram, Rocky Mount, NC
Roswell Daily Record, Roswell, NM
The Daily Tribune, Royal Oak, MI
Today's Sunbeam, Salem, NJ
The San Antonio Express-News, San Antonio, TX (6)
The San Diego Union-Tribune, San Diego, CA (4)
San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, CA (3)
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, San Gabriel, CA
The San Jose Mercury News, San Jose, CA
The Telegram-Tribune, San Luis Obispo, CA
The County Times, San Mateo, CA
The Sentinel, Santa Cruz, CA (3)
The Press Democrat, Santa Rosa, CA (2)
The Tribune, Scranton, PA
The Sheboygan Press, Sheboygan, WI
The Times, Shreveport, LA
The Sioux City Journal, Sioux City, IA (3)
South Bend Tribune, South Bend, IN (2)
The Springfield State Journal-Register, Springfield, IL (3)
Union-News, Springfield, MA
Springfield News-Sun, Springfield, OH (3)
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, MO (2)
The Stamford Advocate, Stamford, CT
Northern Virginia Daily, Strasburg, VA
Pocono Record, Stroudsburg, PA
Sturgis Journal, Sturgis, MI
The Daily News-Sun, Sun City, AZ
The Post-Standard, Syracuse, NY (2)
Tarrentum Valley News Dispatch, Tarentum, PA (2)
Temple Daily Telegram, Temple, TX
The Terrell Tribune, Terrell, TX
The Blade, Toledo, OH
Daily Breeze, Torrance, CA
The Register-Citizen, Torrington, CT
The Times, Trenton, NJ (3)
The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, AZ (4)
The Tullahoma News & Guardian, Tullahoma, TN (2)
Tulsa World, Tulsa, OK
Utica Observer-Dispatch, Utica, NY (2)
The Columbian, Vancouver, WA
Vincennes Sun-Commercial, Vincennes, IN
Waco Tribune-Herald, Waco, TX (3)
The Tribune Chronicle, Warren, OH
The Washington Post, Washington, DC (14)
The Waterloo Courier, Waterloo, IA (2)
Central Maine Morning Sentinel, Waterville, ME (2)
The News Sun, Waukegan, IL
Westfield News, Westfield, MA
The Palm Beach Post, West Palm Beach, FL (9)
The Reporter Dispatch, White Plains, NY (4)
Valley News, White River Junction, VT
The Wichita Eagle, Wichita, KS (2)
The Citizens' Voice, Wilkes Barre, PA
The Times Leader, Wilkes Barre, PA
The News Journal, Wilmington, DE
The Winchester Star, Winchester, VA
Winston Salem-Journal, Winston Salem, NC
The Gloucester County Times, Woodbury, NJ
The Telegram & Gazette, Worcester, MA (4)
The York Dispatch, York, PA
The York Sunday News, York, PA
[[Page S10157]]
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do think it is of interest that
newspapers from the Aiken Standard all the way to the York Sunday News,
196 newspapers--some of them more than once; some of them as many as
five or six times--have editorialized in favor of campaign finance
reform.
Mr. President, one of the people that I admired and revered in many
ways, and in many ways was a mentor to me when I was in a different
avocation, was Senator John Tower. On March 28, 1974, Senator Tower
rose to speak in favor of campaign finance reform. At that time, it was
S. 3261, a bill to reform the conduct and financing of Federal election
campaigns, and for other purposes.
Senator Tower gave a speech at that time, and I ask unanimous consent
that this statement be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Congressional Record, March 28, 1974]
Mr. Tower. Mr. President, today I am introducing the
Federal Campaign Reform Act of 1974. The bill generally
encompasses President Nixon's election campaign reform
proposals as outlined in his message delivered to the Nation
on March 8. As one package, it represents the most
comprehensive set of reform proposals yet to be offered. It
does not subject the political process to the abuses that
would naturally flow from public financing of Federal
elections as envisioned by S. 3044.
I need not dwell on the necessity for campaign reform that
works. What I do wish to emphasize now are the specific ways
in which this bill is in the Nation's best interest.
First, this bill requires each candidate to designate a
single political committee, which would ultimately receive
all contributions made in his behalf. That committee would
make all expenditures by check from a designated federally
chartered bank. These provisions would substantially ease the
administrative burden of enforcing compliance with campaign
laws.
Second, a candidate's political committee would be
prohibited from accepting more than $3,000 from an individual
donor in any Senate or House election, and not more than
$15,000 in any Presidential election. All contributions from
any kind of organization would be prohibited, except those
made by national committees or political action groups.
Third, comprehensive and timely reporting and disclosure
requirements are imposed upon political committees and
political action groups. For example, political action groups
would be required to disclose the ties their principal
officers have to political parties.
Fourth, an independent Federal Election Commission is
established with the independence necessary to effectuate the
provisions of the bill.
Fifth, the bill provides real safeguards against express or
implied intimidation or coercion used against corporate
employees and union members in soliciting campaign
contributions.
Sixth, specific prohibitions against so-called ``dirty
tricks'' are provided. Such activities have no proper role to
play in any campaign, and this bill successfully draws the
line between constitutionally protected campaign activity,
and activity which is universally recognized as intolerable.
Seventh, a shortening of Presidential campaigns, and a
corresponding reduction in the costs of campaigning, are
provided for by prohibiting the holding, before May 1 of an
election year, of Presidential primaries or conventions at
which delegates to the national nominating convention are
selected.
A central theme of the bill is the restoration of the
dignity and power of the individual donor to a proper role in
political campaigns. For too long, big organizations have run
roughshod over the wishes of their individual members.
Implicit intimidation or coercion has often been used to
compel contributions which cannot fairly be characterized as
voluntary. Individual contributors have often been misled as
to the true nature of the political action groups to whom
they gave. Individuals have also felt of insignificant value
in campaigns because of the enormous contributions made by
many organizations.
The ascendancy of the power of faceless organizations in
campaigns is unhealthy. It leads to unfair and
unrepresentative influence on the part of the few who
manipulate the many. Individuality is a hallmark of America
that has made it great. It promotes that diversity of thought
and influence so necessary to a thriving and robust
democracy.
This bill dignifies and encourages each individual to
participate actively in Federal elections. It assures each
voter that he will not be harassed, intimidated, or misled by
political action groups representing narrow and special
interests. It assures each voter that his contribution will
count as much as others.
I must admit that I have philosophical reservations about
placing limitations on an individual's privilege to determine
the amount of his personal contribution. There even might
well be constitutional problems with such a congressional
mandate. However, as I have previously stated, excesses can
and have occurred. Thus, absent judicial reversal of the
concept, such limitations are inevitable and represent a
significant part of this reform package.
Mr. President, I shall consider offering this bill as a
substitute amendment for S. 3044 in substantially the same
form as I am introducing it today. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to review it carefully.
Mr. McCAIN. In the body of his remarks, Senator Tower said:
The ascendancy of the power of faceless organizations in
campaigns is unhealthy. It leads to unfair and
unrepresentative influence on the part of the few who
manipulate the many. Individuality is a hallmark of America
that has made it great. It promotes that diversity of thought
and influence so necessary to a thriving and robust
democracy.
The bill he is referring to is the campaign reform bill that was then
being considered by the Senate.
This bill dignifies and encourages each individual to
participate actively in Federal elections. It assures each
voter that he will not be harassed, intimidated, or misled by
political action groups representing narrow and special
interests. It assures each voter that his contribution will
count as much as others.
Mr. President, Senator Tower described the situation pretty much as
it is today. Each voter does not believe that his or her contribution
counts as much as others. We have seen manifestations of that in
virtually every primary this season. Every voter does not believe that
there is fair and representative influence on the part of the many. In
fact, the voters, in recent polls that have been taken, believe that
there is undue influence on the part of special interests. And I,
having witnessed it myself, am convinced of it.
In 1974, on August 8, Representative Anderson said:
Under our representative system of government, the people
elect fellow citizens to speak for, vote on behalf of, and
represent their interests in the legislative bodies--the
House and Senate--and they elect a President to administer
the laws, conduct foreign affairs, and established
priorities. And, I believe this to be the best system of
government devised by man.
If some people, however, are given preferential treatment
because of their ability and willingness to contribute large
sums toward the election of an individual, then the system
breaks down. If some are ``more equal'' than others, then our
representative system fails and the interests of all the
people are aborted.
And this is a very serious threat to our democracy. It is a
very serious threat if the interests of the rich and powerful
are placed above the interests of the weak and the poor.
Our country was founded on the principle of equality--all
are equal in the eyes of the law. But, if the rich and the
powerful have a greater influence on writing and
administering the laws, is not equality a sham, a farce?
Mr. President, yesterday I noted a document that was put out by the
Democratic National Committee in the 1996 election where a broad
variety of privileges would be extended to those who contributed
$100,000. One of the most egregious were seats on trade missions. These
things have consequences, Mr. President. One of the ongoing
controversies--in fact, we will have a hearing in the Commerce
Committee next week on the transfer of technology to China being
directly related to the issue of these ``trade missions.''
Mr. President, both parties do this. Both parties do this as far as
many of these are concerned. This is a memo from the Democratic
National Committee. If you want to give a contribution of $100,000
annually:
Two annual Managing Trustee Events with the President . . .
Two annual Managing Trustee Events with the Vice President.
One annual Managing Trustee Dinner with senior
Administration officials.
* * * * *
Two Annual Retreats/Issue Conferences . . .
Invitations to Home Town Briefings
As senior Administration officials travel throughout the
country, Managing Trustees are invited to join them in
private, impromptu meetings.
Monthly Policy Briefings
Administration officials discuss topics ranging from
telecommunications policy to welfare reform at regular
Washington policy briefings to which Managing Trustees are
invited.
Personal DNC Staff Contact
Each Managing Trustee is specifically assigned a DNC staff
member to assist them in their personal requests. [et
cetera.]
But of course the one that strikes me is:
no...@senate.gov
[[Page S10158]]
Annual Economic Trade Missions
Managing Trustees are invited to participate in foreign
trade missions, which affords opportunities to join Party
leaders in meeting with business leaders abroad.
Is that equal opportunity? Could any American citizen go on these
trade missions? I think it is pretty clear that if you are willing to
give $100,000 annually, then indeed you can take those trade missions.
A memorandum from whoever Ann Cahill is:
To: Ann Cahill
From: Martha Phipps
RE: WHITE HOUSE ACTIVITIES
Two reserved seats on Air Force I and II trips.
Is that the way you ride on Air Force One and Two, Mr. President?--
``In order to reach a very aggressive goal of $40 million this year . .
. very helpful if we could coordinate the following activities between
the White House and the Democratic National Committee.''
Let me repeat that memorandum: ``. . . coordinate the following
activities between the White House and the Democratic National
Committee.''
Two reserved seats on Air Force I and II trips . . .
Six seats at all White House private dinners . . .
Six to eight spots at all White House events (i.e. Jazz
Fest, Rose Garden ceremonies, official visits).
And in this memorandum it says who the contact is. Ann Stock seems to
be a person to contact; and Alexis Herman, now Secretary of Labor.
Invitations to participate in official delegation trips
abroad.
Contact: Alexis Herman . . .
Better coordination on appointments to Boards & Commissions
. . .
White House mess privileges.
Patsy Thomason was the contact for that.
White House residence visit and overnight stays.
Ann Stock was the person on that.
Guaranteed Kennedy Center Tickets (at least one month in
advance) . . .
Six radio address spots
Contact: David Levy . . .
Photo opportunities with the principles . . .
Phone time from the Vice President.
That was Jack Quinn's job, Mr. President, general counsel. He was
responsible, he is the contact, for phone time from the Vice President.
That would be the subject of some ongoing inquiry.
Ten places per month at White House film showings . . .
One lunch with Mack McLarty per month.
Boy, it makes me better understand why Mr. Mack McLarty decided to go
into private life.
One lunch with Ira Magaziner . . .
I think that might be a penalty rather than a benefit.
One lunch with the First Lady per month.
I will leave that unremarked.
Use of the President's Box at the Warner Theater and at
Wolf Trap . . .
Ability to reserve time on the White House tennis courts .
. .
Meeting time with Vice President Gore.
Again, Jack Quinn was the contact person.
To be very clear, this is a memorandum of May 5, 1994, to Ann Cahill
from Martha Phipps, and it is titled ``White House Activities.'' Again,
it reads:
In order to reach our very aggressive goal of $40 million
this year, it would be very helpful if we could coordinate
the following activities between the White House and the
Democratic National Committee.
I have stated several times that every institution of government was
debased in the 1996 campaign. I think that this document certainly
indicates that was the case.
We will have a vote on a tabling motion by my dear friend from
Wisconsin here in a few minutes and then we will have a cloture vote
later this afternoon. I will have a lot more to say before we finish
this debate.
How do we go home and tell our constituents that we are all equal
when this kind of thing has become commonplace? And the same kinds of
things are done by the Republican Party. Obviously, they didn't have
the White House boxes and those other conveniences or perks. How can we
tell the American people that they are equal when these kinds of things
go on?
The reason I bring this up, this all has to do with the most
egregious aspect of the present system, and that is soft money. When
you look at the dramatic increase in soft money over the last couple,
three cycles, it is dramatic. So there will be more memorandums like
the one I just cited and there will be more soft money and there will
be more requests for large contributors.
I see a couple of my colleagues who are waiting to speak. I believe--
and I will say this again before the final vote--this issue will be
resolved over time and we will prevail because the American people
won't stand for this. They won't stand for it, and I believe they will
demand we clean up this system either sooner or later.
I will talk again later on. I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I inform my colleagues I will not be
offering a motion to table at 12:00 noon. Instead, as I understand it,
we will continue to debate until the cloture vote at 1:45. We will have
the opportunity to vote on this issue again in the days to come, so I
don't see a need for another vote before our cloture vote.
May I inquire of the Chair, am I correct that the time after 12:00
noon but prior to 1:45 will be equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent I control the time on our side.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I didn't hear the
earlier unanimous consent.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I did not propose a prior unanimous consent; the only
unanimous consent I propose is I control the time after 12 noon and
prior to 1:45 on our side.
Mr. McCONNELL. So the suggestion was, we will continue to divide the
time until 1:45?
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do we have remaining on our side prior to
1:45?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 54 minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Prior to 1:45?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, and the Senator from Kentucky
has 63 minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minute to the distinguished
Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
I thank Senator Feingold for yielding the time, and I both thank and
commend Senator Feingold and Senator McCain for their leadership on
this very critical issue. They have been fighting a very lonely--at
times lonely--but a very extraordinary battle for not only the
reforming of our campaign system but, many suspect, the continued
viability of our political system.
We have a campaign finance system in place, but that system has
literally collapsed. The exceptions, the loopholes, the ingenious ways
around, have in fact devoured the rules and we no longer really have a
system of campaign finance. What we have is an all-out race for
dollars, constantly, incessantly, and then an all-out escalation of
spending and political campaigns which has left our constituents amazed
and at times disgusted. We have a responsibility and an obligation to
change this system today, with the opportunity to vote for very modest
reform which will begin to, once again, make elections about ideas and
policies, and not auctions to the highest bidder.
The McCain-Feingold compromise seeks to accomplish two basic goals:
First, to ban the unlimited, unregulated gifts by corporations, wealthy
individuals and labor unions to political organizations, the so-called
soft money; second, to regulate the so-called issue advertisements
which impact on campaigns and which are growing in frequency and in
their emphasis impact on campaigns. By ending soft money contributions,
we will do what we persistently have said we want to do, and that is to
prevent corporations from participating directly in elections.
This is not radical reform, this is commonsense consistent reform
that we thought we accomplished back in 1973 and 1974 with the original
campaign finance reform system.
Second, this legislation would attempt to provide a modicum of
control over the new phenomenon of the issue ads. They would require
the disclosure of the contributions by these individuals and also
indicate who is sponsoring these advertisements, or where they are
getting their money. We have
[[Page S10159]]
seen, over the last several years, an amazing phenomenon--candidates
are in a race and they are discussing the issues and, suddenly, out of
nowhere, comes a mysterious advertisement on television attacking one
or praising another. And they both claim that they had nothing to do
with it. It is no longer their campaign. They are, in a sense,
bystanders on issue advertisements and issue campaigns of which they
themselves, many times, disclaim having any knowledge. All of this
takes out of the hands of the candidates and, ultimately, the hands of
the electorate, what should be at the heart of every election--a
vigorous debate between individual candidates about their vision of the
future of this country.
So we have to do these things. We have to ensure that our campaigns
are not tainted by soft money and not overwhelmed by these issue
advertisements. This is a problem that plagues both of our Houses. As
Senator McCain pointed out, it is not just a situation with the
Democrats or just with the Republicans; both sides are locked into this
inexorable, it seems, race for dollars. In doing that, we have created
a situation where the American people, in many cases, are increasingly
disenchanted; they are voting less and less and are getting to the
point of being contemptuous of the best political system the world has
created to date.
We have to do this modest reform today. Frankly, this is just modest
reform. There are many things that we could and should do that we are
not even talking about today on the floor of the Senate. The States--
the so-called laboratories of reform--are doing things today that we
should be at least contemplating. In my own State of Rhode Island, we
implemented voluntary spending limits with limited public financing.
The States of Maine and New Jersey have done the same thing. The State
of Vermont has implemented strict limits on candidate spending--
legislation which directly challenges the Court's decision in Buckley
v. Valeo, which I believe incorrectly equates money with speech.
In fact, I have introduced similar legislation in this body which
would legislatively put limits on and legislatively force the Court to
reevaluate Buckley v. Valeo. These are very aggressive steps that we
should take. These are things we should do to ensure that our system is
entirely resistant to the ravages of money that is affecting it today.
But at least today we can stand up with Senators McCain and Feingold
and say that we must stop the influence of soft money. We must at least
have the disclosure rule behind these issue advertisements. This is the
first step toward long-term campaign finance reform that will not only
make races about ideas, but will, in fact, I believe, restore the faith
of the American people in their system of government and what we do for
them.
I yield back my time.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
Very properly, Senator McCain made reference to the bipartisan nature
of the problem and the bipartisan nature of the effort. I commend
Senator McCain for doing that, for his strong leadership, which is
essential if this is going to succeed.
I want to put in the Record some documents, for the sake of
completeness, showing how bipartisan this problem is. Senator McCain,
very appropriately, put in a document relative to what the benefits of
major contributors to the Democrats are going to be offered. I don't
know if that was actually implemented under that document or not, but
plenty was implemented.
I ask unanimous consent that these two documents be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
1997 RNC Annual Gala, May 13, 1997, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC
gala leadership committee
Cochairman--$250,000 fundraising goal
Sell or purchase Team 100 memberships. Republican Eagles
memberships or Dinner Tables.
Dais Seating at the Gala.
Breakfast and Photo Opportunity with Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on May 13,
1997.
Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and
the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your
choice.
Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the
Gala.
Vice Chairman--$100,000 fundraising goal
Sell or purchase Team 100 memberships, Republican Eagles
memberships or Dinner Tables.
Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of
your choice.
Breakfast and Photo Opportunity with Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on May 13,
1997.
Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and
the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your
choice.
Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the
Gala.
Deputy Chairman--$45,000 fundraising goal
Sell or purchase three (3) Dinner Tables or three (3)
Republican Eagles memberships.
Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of
your choice.
Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and
the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your
choice.
Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the
Gala.
Dinner Committee--$15,000 fundraising goal
Sell or purchase one (1) Dinner Table.
Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of
your choice.
VIP Reception at the Gala with the Republican members of
the Senate and House Leadership.
(Note.--Benefits pending final confirmation of the Members of
Congress schedules.)
____
1992 Republican President's Dinner
BENEFITS FOR TABLEBUYERS AND FUNDRAISERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundraisers (two Fundraisers ($92,000
Tablebuyers/tablehosts tables) and above) Top fundraisers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private reception hosted by President Private reception Photo Opportunity with Opportunity to be
and Mrs. Bush at the White House; 2 hosted by President President Bush; 1 seated at a head table
people, or Reception hosted by the and Mrs. Bush at the person. with the President or
President's Cabinet, 2 people. In White House, 2 people, All Fundraiser Benefits Vice President based
addition Luncheon at the Vice or Reception hosted by listed above.. on ticket sales.
President's Residence hosted by Vice the President's All Fundraiser Benefits
President and Mrs. Quayle, 2 people. Cabinet, 2 people. In listed above.
Senate-House Leadership Breakfast addition Luncheon at
hosted by Senator Bob Dole and the Vice President's
Congressman Bob Michel, 2 people. Residence hosted by
Option to request a Member of the Vice President and
House of Representatives to complete Mrs. Quayle, 2 people.
the table of ten. With purchase of a Reception with Senator
second table, option to request one Bob Dole at U.S.
Senator or one Senior Administration Capitol, 2 people.
Official. Senate-House
Leadership Breakfast
hosted by Senator Bob
Dole, and Congressman
Bob Michel, 2 people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Attendance at all events is limited. Benefits based on receipts.
Mr. LEVIN. One of these documents is an invitation to the Republican
National Committee Annual Gala 1997, in which for $250,000, the
contributors to the Republican National Committee get to attend a
luncheon with Senate and House leadership and the Republican Senate and
House committee chairmen of your choice. That is $250,000. You get a
luncheon with the committee chairmen.
Next is a 1992 Republican President's Dinner. Major contributors got
a private reception, among other things, hosted by President and Mrs.
Bush at the White House. And the Republican Eagles promised major
contributors who became members of the Republican Eagles' contributor
group ``foreign economic and trade missions,'' in which the Eagles have
been welcomed enthusiastically by heads of state, such as Premier Li
Peng of the People's Republic of China.
Again, Mr. President, I think the point Senator McCain very properly
made is that we have a major, massive, bipartisan problem that is
undermining public confidence in elections in this country. It is a
bipartisan problem. It requires a bipartisan solution, and hopefully
this coalition will stand together in the face of a filibuster and
[[Page S10160]]
say, yes, you have a right to filibuster; that is your right, but we
need not withdraw in the face of a filibuster.
This problem is so huge that it requires action, and we cannot simply
defer it year after year. There has never been a better time for action
than when the House has acted on reform, against the odds, just as we
have to act against the odds if we are going to succeed. I thank
Senators McCain and Feingold, the leaders on both sides of the aisle,
who can succeed if we hang tough here and not withdraw in the face of a
filibuster.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first strongly concur with the
remarks of the Senator from Michigan. We have to proceed on this issue.
We will proceed on this issue this year until we get the job done. I am
grateful for his strength and leadership on this.
I am pleased now to be able to yield some time to the distinguished
junior Senator from Maine, who brings many important qualities to this
issue, but the two that I will list at the top are her extremely
genuine commitment to this issue and her courage. It is a difficult
thing to be a part of this bipartisan issue. I see her involvement as
being absolutely central to the fact that we are even here today still
discussing it.
With that, I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to start by commending the Senator
from Wisconsin for his leadership and thanking him for his kind
comments.
It is with a renewed sense of enthusiasm that I rise today to urge
this body to pass much-needed reforms to our campaign finance laws. I
am buoyed by the courage shown by my Republican colleagues in the House
who were willing to put their commitment to good government ahead of
their parochial interests.
Mr. President, this amendment is needed because the twin loopholes of
soft money and bogus issue ads have virtually obliterated our campaign
finance laws, leaving us with little more than a pile of legal rubble.
We supposedly have restrictions on how much individuals can contribute
to political parties; yet, at last year's hearings before the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, we heard from one individual who gave
$325,000 to the Democratic National Committee in order to secure a
picture with the President of the United States. Another mockingly
testified that the next time he is willing to spend $600,000, rather
than $300,000, to purchase access to the White House.
We supposedly prohibit corporations and unions from financing
political campaigns; yet, the AFL-CIO reportedly spent $800,000 in
Maine on so-called issue ads which anyone with an ounce of common sense
recognized were designed to defeat a candidate for Congress. And as
reported in Sunday's Washington Post, when the class action lawyers
collect their tens of billions in fees from the tobacco lawsuits, the
resulting flood of cash to the Democratic Party will make past
contributions look like pocket change.
We in this body decry legal loopholes, but we have reserved the
largest ones for ourselves. Indeed, these are more like black holes,
and that sucking sound you hear during election years is the whoosh of
six-figure soft money donations rushing into party coffers.
Why should this matter, we are asked by those all too eager to equate
freedom of speech with freedom to spend? It should matter because
political equality is the essence of democracy, and an electoral system
fueled by money is one lacking in political equality.
Mr. President, the hope of Maine support campaign finance reform. If
my colleagues will indulge me a bit of home state pride, I think the
Maine perspective results from old fashion, Down East common sense.
Maine people are able to see through the complexities of this debate
and focus on what is at heart a very simple, yet very profound,
problem. As long as we allow unlimited contributions--whether in the
form of hard or soft money--and as long as we allow unlimited
expenditures, we will not have political equality in this country. It
is not just that there will not be a level playing field for those
seeking public office, but more important, there will not be a level
playing field for those seeking access to their government.
The Maine attitude may well be shaped by the fact that many people in
my state live in communities where town meetings are still held each
year. I am not talking about the staged, televised town meeting that
has become so fashionable of late. I am talking about a rough and
tumble meeting held in the high school gym or in the grange hall.
Attend one of these meetings and you will observe an element of true
democracy; people with more money do not get to speak longer or louder
than people with less money. Unfortunately, what is true at Maine town
meetings is not true in Washington.
Mr. President, the amendment pending before this body is dramatically
different from the original McCain-Feingold bill. It does not seek to
radically alter how we finance our campaigns. Indeed, it does not alter
at all the basic framework that Congress established more than two
decades ago in the 1970s.
Before us today is legislation designed simply to close election law
loopholes that undermine the protections the American people were
promised in the aftermath of Watergate. Put differently, this amendment
does not create new reforms, but merely restores reforms adopted two
decades ago.
Let me be more specific. Gone from this version of the legislation
are the voluntary limits on how much a campaign can spend. Gone is the
free TV time, as well as the reduced TV time. Gone is the reduction in
PAC limits. Gone are the restrictions on certain types of so-called
issue ads run by nonprofit organizations, replaced instead by a
requirement that they disclose their sources of funding.
Most of these continue to be very important reforms to which I remain
personally committed. But in the interest of securing action on the
major abuses in the current system, we who support the McCain-Feingold
proposal have agreed to significant compromises. This is now a modest
bill but nevertheless, a critical first step in the journey toward
reform.
Mr. President, history demonstrates that the current uses of soft
money and issue ads were not intended by the framers of our election
laws. Go back to the early 1980s when soft money was used only for
party overhead and organizational expenses, and you will find that the
contributions totaled a few million dollars. By contrast, in the last
election cycle when soft money took on its current role, these
contributions exceeded $250 million.
Bogus issue ads were such a small element in the past that it is
impossible to find reliable estimates of the amounts expended on them.
Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, and these expenditures have
now become worthy of studies, the most prominent of which estimates
that as much as $150 million dollars was spent on these ads in 1995-96.
When I ran for a seat in this body, I advocated major changes to our
campaign finance laws, but I recognize that goal must wait for another
time. The challenge before us today is far more modest. Are we prepared
to address loopholes that subvert the intent of the election laws that
we enacted more than two decades ago? Are we willing to restore to the
American people the campaign finance system that rightfully belongs to
them?
Those are the questions before this body. Mr. President, a strong
majority of the Members of the House of Representatives support reform
as do a majority of the Members of the Senate. I would hope that the
Senate this week will finally vote to reform a loophole-ridden system.
The American people deserve no less.
Mr. President, it remains to be seen whether campaign finance reform
is an idea whose time has come. But I can assure my colleagues of one
thing--it is an idea that will not die.
Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain-
Feingold amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again am grateful for the comments of
the Senator from Maine and for her support.
[[Page S10161]]
I am also delighted to be able to yield time to someone who has been
deeply involved in this issue, both as a supporter of our legislation
and one of the original supporters of the legislation, but who also of
course is intimately familiar with the problems that have occurred
because of the campaign finance scandal--the chairman of the
Governmental Affairs Committee. At this point I would like to yield 20
minutes to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin very much.
Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. I do so not only
because of what I believe to be the inherent merits of the amendment
but because I think it has broader implications for us today in the
times that we live in.
We have had good times in this country for some time now--
economically, we have low unemployment, we have low inflation, and we
have prosperity. When we look abroad, we have had peace. We are the
lone remaining superpower in the world.
It seems that during times like this, Washington becomes irrelevant
to a lot of people, and in some ways perhaps that is good. But we are
not very mindful of the need for leadership in times of trial and times
of trouble. But the fact of the matter is that in more recent times we
have seen the beginnings of such times of peril and trouble. Many
people think that we have some serious chickens coming home to roost
and that both peace and prosperity are at issue now.
As we look at what is going on in this country and the fact that we
cannot forever remain the only buying nation in a world of sellers--
that we cannot be immune to what is going on in the Pacific rim, the
Soviet Union, perhaps Japan and South America, and the troubling
economic conditions there--we cannot forever be immune, and our economy
cannot be immune, from what is going on in the rest of the world.
We see, as we broaden our perspective, a foreign policy that is in
shambles in many respects. We see that we are losing the respect in
many ways that the United States has had around the world. It is
evidenced by our troubled coalition with regard to Iraq. It is
evidenced by a very, very troubling policy with regard to Iraq where
the credibility of the Nation's leading figures is at issue.
It is at issue when you look at a country such as North Korea, with
whom we are supposed to have a nuclear understanding and agreement, as
they send missiles across our ally in Japan. We are told by the
Rumsfeld Commission that rogue outlaw nations are going to have the
capability within just a few years of launching a missile containing
biological or nuclear or chemical weapons to hit the continental United
States.
So all of this is before us now, and the American people, I think,
are going through somewhat of a period of readjustment in their
thinking because we have not only that, but we have very much of a
troubled Presidency. We have seen for some time now that while nobody
has been paying much attention to a lot of these things, the level of
cynicism continues to go up in this country.
We see the Pew report, for example, which shows that our confidence
in the leadership in this country is low. We see that this lack of
confidence is even greater among our young people. A lot of people used
to attribute the growing cynicism and lack of confidence in many
respects--and it is somewhat affected by the economy as it goes up and
down--but fundamentally the cynicism grows and lot of people say
because of Watergate, because of Iran Contra, because of various other
things, the assassinations of one generation that we saw, Dr. King and
the President, and so forth, but what we are seeing now in these
reports is that the cynicism and the concern is the greatest among our
young people who have never witnessed or had to experience many of
these things. So it makes it even more troubling.
So all of this goes to the point of now that we see the need for
strong leadership, after we have done so much to destroy the confidence
that the American people ought to be having in the leadership of this
country, who is going to listen to our leaders? I have been saying for
well over a year now that with peace and prosperity we can go on
autopilot for a little bit. But if our people continue to be
distrustful of their own Government and the cynicism levels rise,
especially among our young people, when that pendulum swings back, as
it invariably does, and we no longer have peace and we no longer have
prosperity, where is the leadership going to be, and who is going to
follow the leadership of those of us in Washington who stand up and say
here is the way; here is what we need to do; this is the way out of
this problem. We have been in problems before, and we can get out of
this one if you follow us. Who is going to follow us?
That is the question yet to be answered. We do not know what we have
done to our institutions, in many cases by our own actions, in many
cases for other reasons, but we don't know the answer to that. And when
the tough times come, as they invariably will in the short term or the
long term, I only hope that we are strong enough in our institutions,
in the Presidency, in the Congress, and the respect for our court
system to be able to lead the American people.
Mr. President, that is why this issue that we are discussing today is
doubly important. It has to do with the very fundamentals of our
Government. It has to do with the way we finance campaigns in this
country, the way we elect the elected leaders who in turn are supposed
to lead us when we need that leadership. I must say, in my opinion, we
now have the worst campaign finance system that we have ever had in
this country. In fact, you cannot call it a campaign finance system at
all. It is a situation that is an open invitation to abuse. It is an
open invitation to corruption. It is an open invitation to cynicism.
And after the scandal of the 1996 campaign, if we do not do something
about it, the level of cynicism that I talked about earlier, I think,
is going to be even higher.
If people think that we have gotten over the hump and everyone loves
Congress now, you wait until that economy dips just a little bit; it
will come back to the trend it has been following for a long, long
time. It is a scandal waiting to happen. It is a system that after all
this time has come to the point where there is no limitation on big
corporate contributions or big labor contributions, and we are spending
more and more and more time going after more and more money from fewer
and fewer people who have the millions of dollars that is fueling our
system, the same people who come back before us wanting us to either
pass or defeat legislation.
Mr. President, I have said ever since I have been in the Senate, I
say here again today, that is a system that cannot last. That is an
inherently defective system that cannot last over any period of time.
So now because of that system, everybody is onto it and the race is on,
and we are seeing the millions go to tens of millions and the tens of
millions go to the hundreds of millions being put in by the large
corporations and the large labor unions and the large vested interests
that have those kinds of dollars.
It makes me wonder how the small donor, which has been the bedrock of
my party, perceives himself in all this. We are not getting enough
checkoff on the tax returns in the Presidential system right now, and
that is probably going to fail. Voter turnout is getting down there now
with some of the banana Republics, and I think part of that has to be
due to the fact that in a system that I have just described the average
person does not see that it has a whole lot to do with him or with her.
The ironic part about it is that this is not even a system that we
created in Congress. We could not. No one would ever come in here and
offer a piece of legislation that would create the system that we have
today. We can discuss that a little bit further in a moment.
We have had a lot of good discussion about the details of the
amendment and the details of the legislation and some discussion about
the broader principles involved, but the crux of it all has to do with
whether or not we think it is a good idea to have unlimited corporate,
labor, and individual contributions to political candidates and to
incumbents and to have those contributors come in and try to get
legislation passed after they have given us all that money. I think
asking the
[[Page S10162]]
question answers it. When you put it out like that, I think it answers
itself. I think the answer is, no, we do not want that even though that
is what we have.
Why do I say that I think we do not want that when people seem to be
so afraid of reform? Well, it is because throughout our entire history
we have indicated that we do not want that because we ourselves learn
some things sometimes from history, and we look around the world and we
see that almost 2,000 years ago scholars were saying that this is the
sort of thing that brought down the Roman Empire. The Venetians imposed
strict limitations on contributions and money that would go to public
officials. In their system, if donors had favors to ask, they were not
allowed to give anything.
We have seen that political influence money brought down entire
political systems in times past in Japan and Italy. We have seen
corruption in South Korea and Mexico. It is all around us--at the end
of the last century, influence buying scandals; the Watergate; campaign
finance scandal--time and time again.
So, we have seen that. And we also understand that it is a potential
problem from our real world experience. People are sometimes surprised
that a conservative Republican like myself would feel strongly about
campaign finance reform, and they say: Why would that be? I say for the
same reason Barry Goldwater was for campaign finance reform. We will
talk about that in a minute, too.
But I think it has more to do with the fact that up until 3 or 4
years ago I was not involved in the political system, I was not running
for office or holding office. But I did prosecute cases. I did defend
cases. And I am very familiar with the idea that if you have people
making decisions, you have to be very careful about how those decisions
are influenced. If you are a purchasing agent, for example, you cannot
take favors from someone from whom you are considering to buy
something. If you are a loan officer at a bank, you cannot take favors
from people whom you are considering for a loan. People get prosecuted
for things like that all day, whether or not it was the real reason
that the loan was made. The point being--the analogy is not perfect--
but the point being, we have always been very concerned about that. We
have gratuity laws in this country where, regardless of whether or not
it bought anything, there are some people under some circumstances that
you cannot give gifts to, because we are very mindful of the
appearances of that.
We even do that with regard to our own activities. We passed gratuity
laws that pertain to the Congress so now a friend cannot buy you
dinner. He can go out here and raise $100,000 for a committee and, in
turn, it will go to your benefit, he can bundle a few hundred thousand
dollars for you, but he cannot buy you dinner. So at least we are
paying some lip service to the idea that we have to be somewhat mindful
of money going to those who are in positions of decisionmaking power.
We recognized that in 1907 when, as a Congress, as a nation, we
prohibited corporate contributions. We recognized it again in 1943
when, in the same manner, we prohibited labor contributions and set up
political action committees. We recognized it further as a Congress
when we set up the current system of $1,000 limitations and $5,000
limitations on PACs, and so on and so forth.
You can argue over the amounts. I certainly think those amounts now
are ridiculously low. They ought to be raised. The hard money limits
ought to be raised. That is a debate for another time. But the fact of
the matter is, we have been mindful of that. We addressed that. We
always said, in this country, it is a bad idea to have wealthy
individuals being able to give large amounts of money, unlimited
amounts of money, to politicians. It is a bad idea to have big
corporations who are usually involved in government contracts giving
unlimited amounts to politicians or big labor unions. Yet that is what
we have.
By the same token, we are mindful of that, especially with regard to
our Presidential campaigns and our Presidential elections. That is why
we set up a public finance system for our Presidential elections. It is
in shambles now because we have an Attorney General who is not doing
her job and has a singular, a unique way of interpreting laws. But the
fact of the matter is, we set up a system to take our candidates for
President out of the money grubbing system. If you agree to take public
financing, then you get public money, and the public, the taxpayers,
were willing to run those campaigns on their own money, on their dime,
in order to keep their candidates above and separate and apart from
having to raise large amounts of money from these large contributors.
We have always been mindful that large amounts of money and the
decisionmaking of government are things that we have to be very, very
careful about. We do allow some contributions. We do have a system--it
takes money to run campaigns and all of that. We can argue over the
amounts and so forth. But hardly ever has anybody, really, in this
country, carried on a serious debate espousing the idea that all bets
ought to be off, that any big corporation or any big labor union could
give any amount that they wanted to regardless of whether or not they
had legislation pending.
So, if that is the case, how in the world did we get to where we are
today, where, I say, there are no limitations anymore? You have to jump
through a few hoops and you have to be hypocritical--which is no big
hurdle to overcome--and you have to run it through the right kind of
committee and so forth, and you have to word the ad a little bit
correctly, and a few other things that 100 years from now we will look
back on--somebody will look back on, and laugh at, as to how we ever
had a deal like this.
But essentially, whether you are running for President now--under the
Attorney General's current interpretation, running for President now or
to be a Member of Congress or a Member of the U.S. Senate, you can
basically take any amount of money or get the benefit from any amount
of money from anywhere, including the other side of the world. That has
not been fully pushed yet, but I assure you, unless things change, that
will be the next shoe to drop. There are people arguing in courts in
this country right now that there is no limitation, under current law,
on foreign contributions--foreign soft money contributions to our
political parties. So that is the next step.
So, how did we get here? If Congress, if we as a people, have always
been mindful of this problem and Congress has legislatively set up a
restrictive framework, then how did we get to where we are? It is
really pretty simple when you distill it all down. It happened over a
period of time, but essentially the FEC, Federal Election Commission,
decided to open up a little soft money crack and said parties can use a
little soft money in their party-building activities. Then they went a
little bit further and said parties can use some soft money, a certain
percentage of soft money, in their TV issue ads.
And what happened then? The Clinton-Gore campaign took that crack and
ran a Sherman tank through it and basically said, not only are we going
to do that, but we are going to totally coordinate that entire activity
so it will not be independent at all, and that we will sign the
certification that we will take public financing and raise no more
money, but we will really pretend like this is not money for our
campaign.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator's 20 minutes have
expired.
Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I just want to inform my colleague, we only have a
total additional 16 minutes for other Senators, and that will bring
some difficulty here unless I ask unanimous consent that an additional
10 minutes be added to our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We reserve the right to object until we have
a----
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold that request?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, I will.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. What was the consent agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was for Mr. Feingold to add 10
[[Page S10163]]
additional minutes to his side for the debate.
Mr. McCONNELL. Thereby making the vote later?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the effect, yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object----
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of something I was informed of
after I put in my request, I withdraw my unanimous consent request and
I simply yield an additional 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for
another 2 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON. All right. I was not aware that there was a time
agreement. So I apologize for the necessarily abbreviated nature of the
rest of my remarks, which basically have to do with the fact that we
have an interpretation now by the Attorney General which permits that.
Therein lies part of the problem of those who advocate for campaign
finance reform, because those who advocate it in many cases have lost
the high ground. The President certainly lost the high ground because
of his behavior, and I must say that after our congressional hearings
on this subject where we saw foreign money coming in, people taking the
fifth amendment, unlimited access to the White House, shakedowns with
regard to American Indians and Buddhist nuns, use of the White House,
setting people up in positions with classified information, and then
raising money and all of the coverups attendant to that, while we need
to address that from a campaign finance standpoint for the future, we
have not adequately addressed what has gone on in the past.
When we look around for blame to assess with regard to the fact we
can't move this legislation, we have to come to terms with the fact
that those who want to reform cannot be content with saying all we need
is reform and forget about the past. We have not adequately addressed
the past. Those who have let those things go by without blowing the
whistle on them, without seeing anything wrong, without saying that is
wrong conduct, as we saw for the last year in this country in our
hearings, have lost the moral high ground with regard to this
legislation.
I am hoping we can do better in the future. I think those of us who
want reform have to understand, yes, we need to clean up the past, but
we cannot let this hold us hostage for what we need to do in the
future. Those of us who promote campaign finance reform need to
understand that before we can really have it, we have to have justice
for the past. I thank the President and yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, once again the Senate is considering
campaign finance reform. As my colleagues know, the House of
Representatives in August passed a strong reform measure. I'm pleased
that their action has prompted a renewed effort here in the Senate to
pass a comprehensive campaign finance reform measure.
I started my career in politics as a community activist, working to
prevent a highway from demolishing my Fell's Point neighborhood. I
don't want the next generation of community activists shut out of the
process. I want them to know that their efforts matter. I want people
to have an opportunity to participate in their communities and in our
political process. I want to restore each American's faith and trust in
government. The McCain-Feingold amendment is an important part of that
effort.
I have consistently supported campaign finance reform, so I will
gladly vote to close debate on the McCain-Feingold amendment. I hope we
will invoke cloture, and move quickly to a vote on final passage of
this amendment. Vote after vote this year has shown that a majority of
the Senate supports McCain-Feingold.
Unfortunately, through parliamentary tactics and filibuster, a
majority of the Senate has not been able to work its will on this
issue. I hope we will be successful today in at last ending the
filibuster on this issue.
During my time in the United States Senate, I have voted 19 times to
end filibusters on campaign finance reform. So I know we have a fight
on our hands. But it is time for action, and it is time for reform. The
American people are counting on us.
I believe we need campaign finance reform for a number of reasons.
First and most important, we need to restore people's faith in the
integrity of government, the integrity of their elected officials, and
the integrity of our political process.
Many Americans are fed up with a political system that ignores our
Nation's problems and places the concerns of working families behind
those of big interests. Our campaign finance system contributes to a
culture of cynicism that hurts our institutions, our government and our
country.
When Congress fails to enact legislation to save our kids from the
public health menace of smoking because of the undue influence of Big
Tobacco, it adds to that culture of cynicism. When powerful health care
industry interests are able to block measures to provide basic patient
protections for consumers who belong to HMOs, that adds to the culture
of cynicism. Is it any wonder that Americans do not trust their elected
leaders to act in the public interest?
Today we have a chance to help break that culture of cynicism. We can
enact legislation to eliminate the undue influence of special interests
in elections.
How does this amendment do that? First of all, it stems the flood of
unregulated, unreported money in campaigns. It will ban soft money,
money raised and spent outside of federal campaign rules and which
violates the spirit of those rules. It will end the sham of ``issue
ads'' that are really designed to support or oppose federal candidates.
This amendment will improve the disclosure of contributions, and
expand the Federal Election Commission's enforcement capabilities. It
will codify the Beck decision, by allowing non-union members who pay
fees in lieu of union dues to obtain a refund of the portion of those
fees used for political activities. It will make it less likely for
wealthy candidates to try to buy elections, by barring political
parties from making coordinated expenditures for candidates who do not
agree to limit their personal spending.
These are all reasonable reforms. They will get the big money and the
secret money out of campaigns. They will help to strengthen democracy
and strengthen the people's faith in their elected officials.
Mr. President, we can improve our political process, making it more
fair and more inclusive, without compromising our rights under the
Constitution.
By limiting the influence of those with big dollars, and increasing
the influence of those with big hearts, we can bring government back to
where it belongs--with the people.
The McCain-Feingold amendment will help us to do that. I am proud to
support it with my voice and my vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, twice during this Congress, the Senate has
debated reforming the manner in which campaign funds are raised and
spent. A majority of Senators clearly believes that the current system
is in need of reform. Progress has been made during this Congress in
two important areas: in the substance of the issue and in gaining
greater Congressional support for reform.
It would be a shame to sully this bipartisan progress by resorting to
political tactics, as too often has occurred in past debates. In 1992,
both the House and the Senate approved a campaign reform bill that had
no hope of becoming law. It was wholly unacceptable to President Bush,
and he had no recourse but to veto it. In 1993 some of us worked hard
with Members from the other side to craft serious legislation. But the
Senate bill was not agreeable to House Democrats, and it languished in
the House for months before any action occurred. As the election year
adjournment neared, the Democratic leadership reached an agreement on
what would be included in a conference report before the conferees had
ever met, and that agreement was far from the reform that I had hoped
for and supported. In 1996, another election year, a far less
acceptable version of the McCain-Feingold bill was debated and
defeated.
This year, supporters of reform find themselves in a slightly more
hopeful position. The bill before us has been greatly improved; it has
bipartisan support; and the House has already approved very similar
legislation.
[[Page S10164]]
The paramount goal of any true effort to reform the system of
financing elections for federal office must be to reduce the influence
of special interest money on elected officials. Although the proposal
before us may not be the final resolution to the problems that afflict
the current system of campaign fundraising, it provides a better
starting point than we have had in previous years.
I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to take another look
at the modified version of McCain-Feingold that is before us today.
This is a solid proposal that addresses the soft money abuses that have
effectively obliterated federal election law. It addresses the problem
of unregulated, unrestricted, and unreported spending by anonymous
donors. It addresses blatant electioneering disguised as issue
advocacy. And it eliminates enormous soft money contributions from
corporations and big donors. In other words, it goes a long way to
reducing the influence of special interests.
And I urge my colleagues on the other side not to let this debate
degenerate into political gamesmanship.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last fall, the Majority Leader and the
other Republican opponents of campaign finance reform denied the will
of a majority of the Senate--and a majority of the American people--by
denying an up or down vote on the McCain-Feingold bill. This past
February, we witnessed again successful efforts to block consideration
of this proposal. At that point, I stated that such maneuvers violate
the Senate's well-earned reputation for thoughtfulness and
deliberation, in which it rightly takes such pride, and I noted that
full consideration of the campaign finance issue by the Senate is
crucial to maintaining the public's confidence in its government.
Mr. President, the McCain-Feingold bill is before us again, but under
changed circumstances which make the need for Senate consideration of
campaign finance reform all the more vital. We must now consider this
most important issue in the context of House passage of its own
campaign finance legislation--passage which occurred only after
determined members of both parties successfully navigated a minefield
of amendments erected by the House Republican leadership with the goal
of killing campaign finance reform there. Despite these efforts, a
majority of the House held together and enacted legislation that gives
voice to the belief of the American public that our system of campaign
financing needs fixing.
I hope that this time the Senate leadership will give us the same
opportunity to express our support for campaign finance legislation
that the members of the House earned this summer. I am a cosponsor of
the McCain-Feingold bill, and will therefore vote in its favor when--
if--the issue comes before the Senate. Others oppose this legislation.
What the American public deserves at least, however, is an up or down
Senate vote that gives effect to the will of the majority and that
makes the American public confident that the issue has received
thorough review by its elected representatives. Based on prior votes, I
suspect that such review will in fact yield a decision by a majority of
the Senate that campaign finance reform is appropriate and necessary.
But even if I am mistaken and a majority of Senators now oppose such
legislation, a fair Senate process demands that an up or down vote take
place as soon as possible and that the will of the majority be allowed
to carry the day.
In February I noted that the Senate's failure to consider the McCain-
Feingold bill on an up or down vote merely increases the public
cynicism that makes campaign finance reform necessary. Now that the
House has acted, my prior statements are even more true. I therefore
once again urge the Majority Leader to observe a process consistent
with the Nation's desires and needs.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague from Kentucky has, as usual,
made a persuasive case why the McCain amendment is, as it has been for
several years, flawed beyond salvage. I commend him for his leadership
on this issue.
Like most of my colleagues, I do not oppose reform of our campaign
finance laws if it is done in a constitutionally sound manner. But, I
do not think passing campaign finance reform--this McCain-Feingold
amendment, for example--just to say we've enacted reform gives us any
sort of bragging rights. There is no virtue in passing a bad bill.
I would like to spend just a few minutes addressing what, in my mind,
is a much greater issue: the investigation of the fundraising abuses
during the 1996 election cycle. At a time when the supporters of
McCain-Feingold are urging adoption of an unprecedented increase in
federal regulation of campaigns and public discourse, which would be
enforced by this administration, that same administration has made
almost no progress in finding out whether the laws already on the books
were trampled by the Clinton/Gore campaign, the White House, and the
Democratic National Committee. Unfortunately, the Attorney General of
the United States, Janet Reno, has continued to refuse to do what the
law compels her: appoint an independent counsel to conduct the
investigation of the fundraising activities surrounding the 1996
reelection campaign. And her own investigation, mired in obvious
conflict of interest, has been a dismal failure.
Last week I met for almost three hours with Attorney General Reno and
top officials and staff of the Justice Department, including Deputy
Attorney General Holder and Former Task Force head Charles LaBella,
along with House Judiciary Chairman Hyde, House Government Reform and
Oversight Chairman Burton, and Ranking Member Waxman, regarding the
campaign finance investigation and the application of the independent
counsel statute to this widespread and dangerous scandal.
I had requested this meeting in late July after the existence of the
so-called LaBella memorandum had come to light. In that memo, Mr.
LaBella, the handpicked lead investigator with the most extensive
knowledge of the facts of this scandal, concluded that the facts and
law dictated that a broad independent counsel be appointed to
investigate campaign finance abuses by the 1996 Clinton/Gore reelection
campaign, the Clinton administration, and the Democratic National
Committee. This memo came several months after a similar written
conclusion made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Louis Freeh.
Under federal law, the Attorney General must apply to the special
division of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for appointment
of an independent counsel whenever, after completion of a preliminary
investigation, she finds finds information that a high-ranking official
included in a specific category of individuals within the executive
branch may have violated federal law.
More than one and a half years ago, all ten Republicans on the
Judiciary Committee felt the time had come to request such an
appointment. We sent a letter to the Attorney General, as we are
authorized to do by the independent counsel statute, requesting that
she make an application for an independent counsel and demonstrating
the evidence which requires such an application concerning the campaign
finance scandal.
After reviewing redacted versions of the memos prepared by Mr.
LaBella and Director Freeh, it is clear that both gentleman have
advanced strong, convincing arguments in support of a broad-based
independent counsel. Importantly, when I asked the Attorney General and
her top advisors why those recommendations have, thus far, been
rejected, the answers I received were vague, insufficient, or
unconvincing.
I have urged Attorney General Reno to appoint a broad-based
independent counsel for campaign finance for well over a year. I have
written the Attorney General numerous times to demonstrate how she is
misapplying and misunderstanding the independent counsel law. The law
allows her to appoint a independent counsel if she has information that
a crime may have been committed, but she has read the law as requiring
that the evidence shows without a doubt that a crime has been
committed. By setting up this legal standard, she basically has
required that a smoking gun walk in the doors of Justice Department
before she appoints an independent counsel.
As has been widely reported, numerous individual investigations are
being
[[Page S10165]]
handled by the task force. Yet, the task force has reportedly never
conducted an investigation or inquiry into the entire campaign finance
matter in order to determine if there exists specific and credible
information warranting the triggering of the independent counsel
statute. Indeed, as has been reported, the task force has been
utilizing a higher threshold of evidence when evaluating allegations
that may implicate the Independent Counsel Act or White House
personnel.
I have admired the courage of FBI Director Freeh and lead
investigator LaBella in discussing, within applicable rules, their
views on these important issues. They made it clear that the
independent counsel is required under the law, that there are no legal
arguments for the Attorney General to hide behind. Director Freeh
stated that covered White House persons are at the heart of the
investigation. Investigator LaBella said there was a core group of
individuals at the White House and the Clinton campaign involved in
illegal fundraising.
Now some may attempt to defend the Attorney General by noting that
she has gone through the process of legal reviews of many aspects of
the campaign finance scandal. These actions are good, although clearly
incomplete, steps. Each month that goes by sees the Attorney General
lurch towards a real investigation of the campaign finance scandal. We
now have action on several peripheral fronts, including the independent
counsel investigating Bruce Babbitt, the reviews of potential false
statements by the Vice President concerning his fundraising calls and
by Harold Ickes regarding his involvement with unions, and now the
review of the President's control of DNC advertising.
My primary focus, however, has been and remains the infusion of
foreign money and influence on our campaigns. Until we have a broad-
based independent counsel investigation, we will only be looking at the
loose threads of the scandal and not the most serious alleged
violations.
In addition, I hope that the Attorney General will not take the
entire three months to make decisions on these latest matters. The
campaign finance violations we are discussing happened two and three
years ago and every day that passes means leads are drying up, evidence
is lost, and statutes of limitations are running.
While Lead Investigator LaBella and FBI Director Freeh recommended
that the Attorney General appoint an independent counsel to look into
the coordination issue, it is clear that they both think an independent
counsel should be appointed to handle the whole scandal, not just these
peripheral issues. Any independent counsel must be given authority to
delve into the most important questions of the scandal. As the New York
Times concluded, a limited appointment would be a ``scam to avoid
getting at the more serious questions of whether the Clinton campaign
bartered Presidential audiences or policy decisions for contributions.
A narrowly focussed inquiry could miss the towering problem of how so
much illegal foreign money, possibly including Chinese government
contributions, got into Democratic accounts.''
I must also take issue with the Attorney General's assertions that
the current investigation is not a failure because it has secured a
limited number of indictments. Let's remember that the ongoing campaign
finance investigation has only indicted the most conspicuous people who
made illegal donations to the DNC or the Clinton/Gore campaign. It has
made no headway in finding out who in the administration or DNC knew
about or solicited these illegal donations. Until it does so, the
investigation is a failure.
In closing, let me quote the New York Times, which, I believe,
captured the situation perfectly: ``Ms. Reno keeps celebrating her
stubbornness as if it were some sort of national asset or a
constitutional principle that had legal standing. It is neither. It is
a quirk of mind or personality that has blinded her to the clear
meaning of the statute requiring attorneys general to recuse themselves
when they are sunk to the axle in conflict of interest.''
The inability of the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute
the violations of existing laws is the real scandal here. That is what
we should be talking about, rather than legislation which would
represent an unconstitutional, unwise, and partisan trampling of our
electoral system and First Amendment rights.
One final note, Mr. President. I believe that the American people
want accountability in the electoral market place--not more
restrictions on what they can and cannot do to participate in it.
Accountability is a desirable thing in campaigning. I have always
favored disclosure, and I believe we can take steps to enhance the
information available to the press and to the public. But,
accountability is not the same as regulating, which is what we are
debating here today.
This measure imposes new restrictions without necessarily increasing
accountability, and it does so at a time when there has been little
effort to effectively enforce the campaign laws we already have on the
books. I join the Senator from Kentucky in urging defeat of this
amendment.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, in the next few weeks I will be casting my
final votes and concluding my four terms in the Senate. During this
last term, a significant amount of my time has been devoted to
investigating abuses of our current campaign finance system. What I
have learned is that this is a problem which cannot wait. I am pleased
that one of my remaining votes can be cast in support of important
reform, however, I am disappointed that the Senate will likely not pass
this much needed legislation.
Although I have always been a supporter of campaign finance reform--
and indeed I personally believe that a system of campaigns fairly and
equally underwritten by all Americans through some form of publicly
supported financing is the only way to ensure public officials are not
unduly influenced--but this last session has been a lesson for me on
just how urgently we need to fix the campaign finance laws.
When we originally passed the current campaign finance laws it was in
the wake of allegations that the presidential campaigns of the early
1970s had accepted hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars
from secret contributors not known to the voters. The goals of that law
were right and for many years it served us well. But there are few
things that change as quickly as campaigns and politics. By 1996 our
law had been eroded to the point that it was barely recognizable.
In 1996, we again faced a system totally out of control--filled with
soft money and thinly disguised political advertisements masquerading
as ``issue'' advertising funded by secret sources. We faced an election
in which even the Members of this body--the people governed by the
campaign finance laws--did not know what was legal and what was not.
The amendment that is before us today and the bill that passed the
House are a direct product of the chaos of the 1996 election. They are
good legislation that address the two key problems of our campaign
finance system--the proliferation of soft money and the use of thinly
disguised ``issue'' advertisements. In addition, the legislation takes
important steps to strengthen the Federal Election Commission. The
goals of the bill before us today are the same as those of the original
law: to deter corruption, to inform voters and to prevent wealthy
private interests from exercising disproportionate influence over the
government.
There is no question that most problems we saw in the 1996 election
stemmed from legal activity. There is also no question that both
political parties and groups supporting candidates on both sides of the
aisle in 1996 took advantage of these loopholes in their quest to win.
The problems of soft money being used to purchase access and of secret
contributors funding their own attack advertising campaigns without
disclosing their identity can not be solved by any other means than by
passing a new law.
The proposals in this bill are carefully drafted to protect the First
Amendment right of voters to engage in political speech. The
legislation simply requires public disclosure and compliance with
contribution limits. To those who see no problem with soft money
advertising campaigns by parties and issue advertising by unknown and
undisclosed contributors I can only wonder what they will say after the
next time they run for re-election and
no...@senate.gov
[[Page S10166]]
discover they no longer have any control over the course of their own
campaigns?
No one can seriously argue that the system of soft money and secret
issue ads is consistent with the spirit of the campaign finance laws.
Together, the soft-money and issue-advocacy loopholes have eviscerated
the contribution limits and disclosure requirements in federal election
laws and caused a loss of public confidence in the integrity of our
campaign finance system. By inviting corruption of the electoral
process, they threaten our democracy. For parties to accept
contributions of hundreds of thousands--even millions--of dollars, from
corporations, unions and others to air candidate attack ads without
meeting any of the federal election law requirements for contribution
limits and public disclosure is a fundamental step backwards.
Twice in the past year we have voted on the amendment before us
today. Each time, although a majority of the Members of this body have
voted in support of the bill--a minority opposed to reform has blocked
its passage.
Today we again take up this measure--but this time with a
difference--this time the House of Representatives has worked together
in a bi-partisan manner, recognized the critical need for reform, and
passed a bill. By coming together and passing this reform legislation
we in the Senate can take advantage of a narrow window of opportunity
and turn these bills into a new and vital campaign finance law. This is
a rare chance to fix a major problem. If we fail, it will plague us in
many elections to come.
Over the course of my Senate career, I have watched as public
cynicism about government increases, and trust in government declines.
In 1996, for the first time, less than half the people in this country
eligible to vote cast a ballot. We must assure the integrity of our
campaigns if we are to have any hope that young Americans will continue
to have the faith in our government and in its public servants.
If we do not act we here in the Senate will be responsible when the
abuses witnessed by the American people in 1996 are repeated. All that
will change is that amounts of money will continue to increase and
public faith will continue to decline. In less than two months we will
see the loopholes ripped open in 1996 resulting in an even greater
flood of money into the system as each party tries to elect their
chosen candidates, and the candidates battle to be heard against the
flood of issue advertising.
There is nothing I should like to be able to say so much as that I
left the Senate having helped to pass into law the amendment before us
today. I would ask that my colleagues join with me to cast a vote to
enact into law these sensible reforms that we know we need. Only then
can I depart with the confidence that we have acted to protect our
electoral process from the apathy and cynicism that are a danger to
democracy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with this amendment the United States
Senate has an excellent opportunity to restore public faith in the
political system by enacting long overdue campaign finance reform.
After cynically withdrawing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform
bill last winter, the Senate followed the lead of the House and passed
a needed new law to limit the role of money in election campaigns.
The current system is a scandal, and I commend Senator McCain and
Senator Feingold for their leadership in demanding that the Senate act
on reform. The vast sums of special interest money pouring into
campaigns are a cancer on our democracy. The voice of the average
citizen today is scarcely heard over the din of lobbyists and big
corporations contributing millions of dollars to political campaigns
and buying hundreds of TV ads to promote the causes of their special
interests.
Every Democrat supports the proposal before us. If enough Republicans
join us, this reform will pass.
It is time to end special interest gimmickry in campaign advertising.
Currently, special interests can run as many so-called issue ads as
they wish as long as they do not specifically advocate a candidate's
election. The American people aren't being fooled--they know that these
are campaign ads in disguise and should be regulated accordingly.
Democrats also want to close the gaping loophole on soft money, which
allows special interests to bypass legal limits on giving money
directly to candidates. Big corporations and other special interests
use this loophole to funnel money to candidates through the back door,
by making so-called ``soft-money'' contributions to political parties
and other political organizations that are spent to benefit candidates.
More than $250 million in soft money contributions played a part in
the 1996 elections. McCain-Feingold proposal will ban this practice.
The fact is that phony issue ads and soft money contributions have
created a climate in which our elections and our legislative agenda are
determined more and more by how much money candidates can raise and
less and less by issues of concern to families and communities across
America. The public doesn't have to look any further than the Senate
floor to see the effect big money has on the Republican legislative
agenda.
For example, Republicans are determined to pass a bankruptcy bill
bought and paid for by the consumer credit industry, despite the pleas
of bankruptcy judges, scholars, and consumer groups.
Why is Congress moving so quickly to pass legislation that raises
such grave concerns? Who benefits from the bill? Is it working
families, the elderly, women and children? The answer is a resounding
``no.'' If you want to know who benefits from this legislation, just
look at the corporate interests making soft money contributions--the
consumer credit industry gave $5.5 million in soft money during the
1995-1996 election cycle. Common Cause reports that since 1995,
Republicans in the House of Representatives have received more than
twice the PAC and soft money contributions from consumer creditors as
Democrats, and--not surprisingly--Republicans voted wholesale for the
bankrtupcy bill. In the House of Representatives, the bill had the
support of every Republican.
The tobacco industry's total PAC and soft money contributions are
less than half of what the credit industry gave during the same
period--but, it was enough for the Republican leadership to reject
needed anti-tobacco legislation and prevent it from being enacted.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids reports that Senators who voted
consistently against the tobacco reform legislation took far more money
from the industry--four times more--than those who supported the bill.
In the past ten years, Senators supporting the tobacco industry's
position have accepted an average of $34,000, while those who support
reform measures accepted about $8,000 in contributions.
The challenge of managed care reform is another example of the power
that big corporations can wield against the interests of individuals
and families in the political process. In the halls of Congress, big
money from campaign contributors is drowning the voices of our
constituents.
A year ago, in a private strategy meeting called to defeat the
Patients' Bill of Rights, staff from the Senate Republican leadership
exhorted insurance industry lobbyists to ``Get off your butts, get off
your wallets.'' And lo and behold, the industry ingloriously responded.
In fact, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and its state affiliates have made $1
million in political contributions during the 1997-1998 cycle, with
four out of every five dollars going to Republicans. They are also the
number one PAC donors to leadership committees. They more than doubled
their contributions during the 1995-1996 election cycle and 98 percent
of the contributions were directed to Republicans.
According to the Center on Responsive Politics, managed care PACs--
including the American Association of Health Plans, the Health
Insurance Association of America, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield--gave
$77,250 to leadership political action committees. All but $1,500 went
to the Republican majority. As of July 1, these industry PACs have made
$1.8 million in political contributions during this election cycle, and
70 percent of the money is directed to Republicans.
These same corporations have also funded a multi-million dollar
advertising campaign of disinformation and distortion on managed case
reform.
[[Page S10167]]
The same corporations profit by denying care to patients who have
faithfully paid their premiums. These same corporations, with their
crocodile tears, claim that patient protections will bankrupt them or
force them to raise premiums by hundreds of dollars.
These same corporations are spending millions of dollars--taken from
premiums paid by patients--on political campaign contributions and
advertising to defeat the very legislation that patients need and
deserve.
What did this significant investment buy? Just what they wanted.
Inaction by Congress. Stonewalling. A ``just say no'' strategy. At the
behest of their big donors and special interest friends, the Senate
Republican leadership has delayed and denied consideration of the
Patients' Bill of Rights for nearly a year and a half.
The choice is clear. Will the Senate stand with patients, families,
and physicians, or with the well-heeled special interests that put
profits ahead of patients?
It is clear that the majority of Senator Republicans are standing
with the special interests. There is no mystery about what is going on.
The Republican Leadership's position is to protect the insurance
industry instead of protecting the patients. They know they can't do
that in the light of day. So their strategy has been to work behind
closed doors to kill the bill. Keep it bottled up in Committee. No
markup. No floor debate or vote.
Bill Gradison, the head of the Health Insurance Association of
America, was asked in a interview published in the Rocky Mountain News
to sum up the coalition's strategy. According to the article, Mr.
Gradison replied ``[t]here's a lot to be said for `Just say no.' '' The
author of the article goes on to report that:
[a]t a strategy session . . . called by a top aide to
Senator Don Nickles, Gradison advised Republicans to avoid
taking public positions that could draw fire during the
election campaign. Opponents will rely on Republican leaders
in both chambers to keep managed care legislation bottled up
in committee.
Just as managed care plans gag their doctors, the Republican
leadership wants to gag the Senate. Just as insurance companies delay
and deny care, the Republican leadership is trying to delay and deny
meaningful reform. Just as health plans want to avoid being held
accountable when they kill or injure a patient, the Republican
leadership wants to avoid being held accountable for killing patient
protection legislation.
That is why the Republican leadership is trying to hide its tactics
of delay and denial behind a smokescreen of parliamentary maneuvers and
phony procedural justifications. They say we don't have time to debate
managed care. They reject offer after offer from the Democratic leader,
thereby continuing the stall of this critically important legislation.
I say, the American people aren't interested in excuses. They want
action. They want reforms. They want clean elections. This legislation
will give it to them and it deserves to pass by an overwhelming
majority of the Senate.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is the sixth year I have been a
Member of the U.S. Senate. And this is the sixth year I can recall
debating campaign finance reform. I have voted to pass campaign reform
legislation in 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, and now 1998. We actually passed
a good bill in the Senate in 1993. Each time it has been killed off by
filibuster.
Each time I thought, this is it. This is our chance to make some
changes that the people of this country will notice and respect. This
is our chance to restore a measure of faith in American democracy.
While I've had my share of disappointments, today we are here again
with a rare and valuable opportunity to actually get a bill signed into
law.
Mr. President, it is critically important that we pass campaign
reform legislation. The health of our democracy is not good. Yes, the
economy is strong, crime is down, and people are generally feeling good
about their lives. But there is an undercurrent that I find deeply
troubling, and it's been building for the past two decades.
People simply do not like government. They do not trust government,
and they do not feel like they are part of the process. They are losing
faith and I think it would be terrible if we did not do something to
re-invigorate peoples' interest in American democracy.
If any of my colleagues doubt this, just look at voter turnout rates
and voter registration rates. People just are not participating any
more, and it gets worse each year.
What exactly is the problem? Money, plain and simple. Too much money,
having too much influence over our democratic process.
The campaign system is so clogged with money, there is hardly room
left for the average voter. Political campaigning has become an
industry in this country. In the last election, over a billion dollars
were spent on federal elections alone. To what end?
That money--much of it undisclosed, from dubious sources--flowed into
the political arena and dictated the terms of our elections to the
people. Like water, it flowed downhill into campaigns all across the
country. Some of it came out in the form of national party ads
attacking candidates in the abstract; some came out in the form of
issue-ads by interest groups trying to influence the outcomes. Some of
it came out in the candidates' own TV ads.
It reaches the point where you almost cannot hear the voices of the
candidates or the people anymore, only the voices of the dueling
special interests. We do not know who pays for these ads, where they
get their money, or what they stand to gain if their candidate wins.
Yet they have found ways to have a huge influence over the election
process.
Opponents of reform argue against the McCain-Feingold bill on free
speech grounds. They argue politicians and political parties should be
able to take money in any amount from anyone in order to make the case
for their re-election. They believe that having more money entitles one
to a greater influence over our campaigns and elections. I find this
argument shocking, Mr. President. I find it profoundly un-democratic,
and un-American.
The last time we debated reform, I told a story of a woman who sent
my campaign a small contribution of fifteen dollars. With her check she
enclosed a note that said, ``please make sure my voice means as much as
those who give thousands.'' With all due respect, Mr. President, this
woman is typical of the people who deserve our best representation.
Sadly, under the current campaign system, they rarely do.
I have tried to live by my word on this issue. My first Senate
campaign was a shoe-string affair. I was out spent nearly three-to-one
by a congressional incumbent. But because I had a strong, grassroots,
people-based effort, I was able to win.
Since then, I have worked hard to keep to that standard. I have over
35,000 individual donors. The average contribution to my campaign is 69
dollars. Nearly 75 percent of my contributions come from within
Washington state. I firmly believe that's the way campaigns should be
run: by the people.
We need more disclosure, not less. We need more restrictions on
special interest money, not fewer. We need less money in the system,
not more. We need to amplify the voices of regular people, instead of
allowing them to be shouted down by special interests.
Mr. President, the opponents of reform miss the point. In America,
money does not equal speech. More money does not entitle one to more
speech. The Haves are not entitled to a greater voice in politics than
the Have-nots. In America, everyone has an equal say in our government.
That is why our Declaration of Independence starts with, ``We, the
people.''
When this Congress started, I thought this might really be our chance
to pass a bill. The public was paying more attention. The excesses of
the last campaign season, brought to light through the good work of the
Government Affairs Committee, made campaign reform a front-burner issue
in every kitchen in America. More than one million signatures were
delivered to the Capitol from people all over America who joined a
nationwide call for reform.
A bipartisan group of Senators committed to reform worked overtime to
craft a reasonable reform measure that makes sense for America. I think
we
[[Page S10168]]
all owe a debt of gratitude to Senators McCain and Feingold for their
work. They generated public support, made their case to the media, and
pushed for the last few votes necessary to pass a bill. Well, the time
has come to see if this is our chance to do the right thing.
Our like-minded colleagues in the other body did find the votes, and
they did pass a good strong bill. The Senate has more than enough votes
to pass the same bill on an up-or-down vote. All we need are eight more
votes from the majority party to do the right thing for America. Mr.
President, who will it be? Who will be the heroes on this vote? And who
will let down the millions of American citizens who have grown sick,
tired, and alienated from our democratic system?
Mr. President, I believe we have made this debate way too
complicated. After all the maneuvering, the cloture petitions, the
technicalities, the procedural votes, this issue boils down to one
basic question: are senators willing to make some modest reforms to
reduce the influence of big money in politics and encourage greater
voter participation? Or are they more interested in protecting the
current system, and the ability of parties and politicians to turn
financial advantage into political advantage?
Are you for reform, or against it? Are you with the people, or
against them on the need for a more healthy democracy? The votes we are
taking today will show the answers to these questions.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I add my voice to the on-going
debate on the campaign finance reform bill that is before us once
again. Let me say right up front, so that there is no confusion, I
support, and I have always supported enforceable, reasonable, common-
sense reform. Unfortunately, I don't believe the amendment offered by
Senators McCain and Feingold before the Senate meets those standards,
nor do I believe it would stand a Constitutional challenge. As I stated
with my friend and fellow Coloradan, Senator Allard, in a joint
editorial printed in the Denver Post back in October, ``real campaign
finance reform protects the right to free speech under the First
Amendment while guaranteeing the public's right to know through full
disclosure.'' This amendment does not contain that kind of reform. The
Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to freedom of speech
and association in the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court applied those words to campaign spending in the
landmark case Buckley v. Valeo to mean that money spent in favor or
against a candidate is a form of speech, and therefore entitled to this
protection. That decision has been reinforced over and over again.
Given this ruling, I cannot believe that the Court, or the Founding
Fathers, intended to impose a sixty- or thirty-day moratorium prior to
elections on this right, as this amendment would do. I believe the
Founders wanted Americans to have the unabridged right to speak their
minds and show their support for candidates by using a collective
voice, including showing support by making contributions to one
candidate or another.
In order to have an educated electorate, money must be spent on
spreading candidates' messages. In our free market system, advertising
rates are determined by the industry. I would note that these days,
there is hardly such a thing as a ``free exchange of ideas,'' as nearly
all forms of communication cost money. The exchange of ideas and
opinions is what allows the public to become informed about the
candidates that are seeking office. But limiting the amount candidates
can raise and spend severely limits the ability to spread information
about their backgrounds and opinions, and only harms citizens. I cannot
understand why this amendment targets some forms of spreading these
messages while allowing others to continue unchecked. Doesn't that
signal to the American people that the First Amendment only applies to
speech that is printed, and not speech that is broadcast?
I would note that my colleagues and I have been under tremendous
pressure this session to pass this particular legislation. But until we
have found a solution that answers all the Constitutional concerns that
have been raised, I am reluctant to act on this particular measure. As
was stated in an editorial that appeared in my state's Rocky Mountain
News, this ``particular piece of legislation would have betrayed
several of the nation's most important principles, not the least of all
is its guarantee of free political speech.'' I wholeheartedly agree
with this sentiment.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent
that the text of this editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The McCain-Feingold Fraud
As those of you with the radio on last week probably know,
Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell has been the target of an ad
campaign by a coalition that supports something known as the
McCain-Feingold bill, a campaign finance reform that died
last Thursday in the U.S. Senate.
Various local journalists also joined the crusade, in one
instance publishing Campbell's office phone number as a
service to readers who wished to complain about his failure
to support the bill.
But, in fact, that particular piece of legislation would
have betrayed several of the nation's most important
principles, not least of all its guarantee of free political
speech. Under one of its provisions, for instance, groups
focused on particular issues would be prohibited from
mentioning the names of candidates in advertisements as
elections drew near.
Can anyone with any understanding of the First Amendment
honestly believe that Congress can constitutionally prohibit
any organization of Americans from saying any politician at
nay time it chooses?
The American Civil Liberties Union has correctly identified
one probable result of McCain-Feingold: ``to shut down
citizen criticism of incumbent officeholders standing for re-
election at the very time when the public's attention is
especially focused on such issues.''
The truth is, McCain-Feingold would probably have fixed
very little on its way to hampering democratic discussion. It
would not have become easier--and might well have become
harder--to challenge an incumbent, especially if you happened
to be a third-party candidate. For that matter, the most
publicized campaign spending scandals of the past year
involved activity that was already illegal. If the bill had
been enacted, politicians probably would have figured out
ways to circumvent it--and the Supreme Court probably would
have declared it unconstitutional.
Sure, the present system is not pretty to look at.
Politicians work constantly to raise money for their
campaigns, and special interest groups are forever trying to
influence legislation with their donations, usually by
helping those who have helped them in the past. One possible
reform is full, instant disclosure of contributions so that
voters can themselves determine whether candidates are in
danger of being bought.
Give people liberty, and their political system is going to
be messy. Taking away some significant portion of that
liberty is too high a price for cleaning things up.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly support the McCain-Feingold
amendment to reform the federal campaign finance system.
It is clear that a majority of the United States Senate supports the
McCain-Feingold amendment. I urge senators to stop filibustering this
extremely important matter, and let us pass the plan and send a bill to
the president.
I want to explain what the amendment does and the kinds of abuses of
the system that it would prevent.
First, it bans unlimited ``soft money'' contributions, which are
contributions to national political committees like the Republican and
Democratic National Committees.
Under current law, ``soft money'' contributions are unlimited and
virtually unregulated. This means that a corporation with an interest
in legislation pending in Congress--such as an oil company--can give
hundreds of thousands of dollars to the national political parties in
an attempt to influence the outcome of the legislation.
The McCain-Feingold amendment would shut down the special interest
money machine by imposing limits on contributions to the national
political parties.
Second, the McCain-Feingold amendment bans attack advertising
disguised as ``issue ads'' by corporations and unions within 60 days of
an election. The amendment also requires others--individuals and
nonprofit organizations--to disclose their contributors and
expenditures for these ads.
Current law allows anyone to launch vicious attacks against
candidates and not disclose their true identity or the sources of their
contributions, as long
[[Page S10169]]
as the ad doesn't say ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' the candidate.
For example, a group of tobacco companies can get together, form a
phony organization called ``Citizens for Good Government'', and have
that ``organization'' spend millions of dollars for television ads
attacking a congressional candidate who supports tougher tobacco laws.
And those companies never have to disclose what they did.
This isn't just a hypothetical: In my own state, outside special
interest groups regularly spend millions of dollars attacking
California congressional candidates, often leaving those candidates
mere spectators in their own election campaigns.
The amendment prohibits corporations and unions from buying these
stealth attack ads, and anyone else--individuals and nonprofit
organizations--has to disclose what they are doing.
Third, the amendment fixes a major problem in the law governing
``independent expenditures'', which are efforts on behalf of a
candidate by someone not affiliated with that candidate's campaign.
Under current law, a political party can make ``independent
expenditures'' on behalf of a candidate at the same time it is making
expenditures that are coordinated with the candidate's campaign. Mr.
President, this is an absurd situation! Clearly, a political party
can't--at the same time, with the same political operatives, from the
same office--be both ``independent of'' and ``coordinate with'' a
political campaign!
The McCain-Feingold amendment allows a political party to do only one
or the other: If the party makes ``independent expenditures'', it can't
also make ``coordinated'' expenditures for the campaign.
Finally, the amendment requires faster and more complete disclosure
of contributions to campaigns.
Mr. President, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for
cloture on this amendment and move to passage so that we can send a
bill to the president and make these changes in our campaign finance
system.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. In light of the fact we have limited time, I ask that
any time that is open here, a quorum call time, be charged to the other
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I confess, I was not particularly
attentive. What was the unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request was that any
quorum calls be charged exclusively to the time under the control of
the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask that the time be equally divided with regard to
the quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague from Wisconsin whether I can speak
for 10 minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I inform the Senator from Minnesota, we only have a
total of 16 minutes remaining. Mr. McCain would like some time. If the
Senator would like to speak for 3 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is to be advised
that he has 11 minutes, 45 seconds remaining. The Senator from
Minnesota is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had a chance to speak yesterday for
about half an hour, so let me summarize this way:
First of all, I thank Senator Feingold who I think has just emerged,
really, as a leading reformer before the U.S. Senate for his work,
along with Senator McCain. This is a bipartisan effort, and I, frankly,
think it speaks to the core issue.
What I tried to say yesterday on the floor of the Senate is that as I
think about a whole range of questions, over and over and over again, I
come back to the fact that too few people have way too much wealth,
power, and say, and too many people are just locked out. The polls show
people want to have faith in our political process, people want to
believe in what we are doing, but the conclusion that many people have
reached is that if you pay, you play, and if you don't pay, you don't
play, and that, basically, the same investors pretty much control both
political parties; they control the political process.
So many people in Minnesota and across the country have reached the
conclusion that when it comes to their concerns about themselves and
about their families and about their neighbors and about their
communities, that their concerns are of little concern here in the
corridors of power.
I can't think of a better thing for us to do than to pass this piece
of legislation. The Shays-Meehan bill passed in the House of
Representatives. That was a very important victory. We now have an
important vote on the floor of the Senate. There is an effort on the
part of those who are opposed to reform to block this. That is what
this is all about. We have a majority support on the floor of the U.S.
Senate. I hope that other Senators will step forward and support this
important piece of legislation, this important amendment offered by
Senator McCain and Senator Feingold.
As a Senator from Minnesota, a good government State, a progressive
State, a State that cares about clean money and clean elections, a
State that believes integrity in the political process is the most
important thing that we can focus on, this piece of legislation, this
amendment is the most important amendment that we will be voting on
during this Senate.
I hope my colleagues will vote to end this filibuster and support
this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of the fact that we have very
limited time remaining, I ask that any time under subsequent quorum
calls not be charged against our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? As a Senator from the
State of Minnesota, I lodge an objection.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am about to put in a quorum call. I am
going to ask unanimous consent that we be able to use our remaining
time near the conclusion of this debate. We have how much time
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has control of 8
minutes, 40 seconds.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that we be permitted to use
that time just prior to the end of the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Again, as a Senator from the State of
Minnesota, I have to object. I can equally divide--objection is heard.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sean
O'Brien, who is an intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the
floor today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S10170]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who requests time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have control of the time.
Who seeks time? The Senator has control of time on the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that it be
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished proponent
of this bill from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, would be willing to
yield some time. Does the Senator have any additional time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Precious little. I can yield the Senator 2 minutes of
our remaining 8 minutes.
Mr. BUMPERS. My speech will be much better than sitting in a quorum
call. I thought I might get more time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I came over to express my very strong
support for campaign finance reform. From the time I ran for Governor
in 1970 until 28 years later--this very moment--I have abhorred the
system of financing campaigns in this country. One of the reasons--not
the main reason, but certainly one of the reasons I decided not to seek
reelection this year was because I detested going out and raising
money.
Let me also say that it is reaching the point in this country where
the cost of campaigning goes up every single year--and there is no end
in sight.
Right now the Attorney General is conducting a 90-day interim period
investigation on whether or not the DNC coordinated a 1996 campaign
with the President of the United States. The same thing is going on
with the Vice President. And the same thing will go on forever until we
change it, and change it dramatically--soft money, hard money, issue
ads, attack ads.
I close, Mr. President, by saying I consider not only the method of
financing campaigns in this country ominous, quite frankly, I consider
it rotten to the core.
I also want to say to the American people----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BUMPERS. Thirty seconds?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the Senator 30 additional seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. Anybody who believes that a democracy can survive when
the people you elect and the laws you pass depend on how much money is
given for the cause are daydreaming. It is dangerous to our system. It
is dangerous to our democracy. I plead with my colleagues to vote for
cloture on this matter.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, the
vote is scheduled for the hour of 1:45?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCAIN. This side has used all but 8 minutes of its time, and the
other side has not used a significant amount of its time because there
is an hour and 15 minutes approximately between now and when the vote
is scheduled.
What we are trying to achieve here is, one, allow the debate to
continue, and, two, allow the proponents of the legislation the
opportunity to continue the debate.
I thought that this whole debate was being conducted in an atmosphere
of comity. When I have been in other debates here on the floor of the
Senate and there has been no one to speak in opposition or in favor of
a particular amendment, then those who wanted to speak were allowed to
speak.
If we are going to depart from that, Mr. President, OK. But I am
asking unanimous consent, one, that the last 20 minutes be equally
divided, 10 minutes on each side, but also I am asking unanimous
consent that if there are no speakers in opposition to the legislation,
that speakers in favor of the amendment be allowed to speak rather than
just throw the Senate into a quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
In the Chair's capacity as a Senator from Minnesota----
Mr. McCAIN. Could I make one addition? I ask unanimous consent to add
one addition to that. That is, when Senator McConnell returns, and if
he or any of the opponents wish to use their time, they clearly would
be allowed to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the President, and I thank my colleagues for
their cooperation.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Under the unanimous consent agreement, I understand, as
long as there are not opposition speakers present, that we can go
forward without that being charged against our remaining time. Is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
In light of that, I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota has any
additional remarks. I am prepared go forward, if he does not.
Mr. President, we have heard a lot of criticism of our bill during
this debate on constitutional grounds. The Senator from Kentucky said
once again yesterday something that he has said many times. He
expressed his opinion that there is ``absolutely no way'' that our bill
will be held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. And obviously I
disagree with that analysis.
Our bill has been carefully crafted to be consistent with the Court's
decision in Buckley v. Valeo. The only way to find out who is right, of
course--because you cannot call up the Chief Justice and ask him for
advice or his opinion--the only way is by passing this bill, and
allowing a court challenge to take place. I and other supporters of the
McCain-Feingold bill are ready to defend this bill in court, and I
sincerely hope that we will have a chance to do so.
The Senator from Kentucky does have one group on his side that does
specialize in the first amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union.
And he is fond of reminding us that the ACLU, ``America's expert on the
first amendment,'' as he likes to say, opposes our bill. Let me say, I
have a great deal of respect for the ACLU in many areas. In fact, I may
have agreed with them on more issues over the years than the Senator
from Kentucky. But I think it is worth pointing out two things with
respect to the ACLU's position on campaign finance reform.
First, the ACLU is on record many times as opposing the Court's
decision in Buckley that limitations on campaign contributions are
constitutional. In other words, the ACLU disagrees with the Court's
ruling in Buckley. The ACLU believes, for example, that limitations on
soft money donations to political parties would be unconstitutional.
But that is an opinion that is by no means in the mainstream of
constitutional thought.
In fact, as we have noted many times over the last year, we have a
letter signed by 127 law professors who wrote to Senator McCain and to
me and gave their opinion that a soft money ban would be fully
consistent with the first amendment and the Buckley decision and
therefore would be constitutional.
Senator McConnell once said it would be easy to find 127 law
professors of his own to say that soft money cannot be banned, but so
far no such letter has ever materialized. Senator McConnell has been
completely unable to come up with a list of constitutional scholars
that would suggest that we cannot ban soft money, and I doubt that he
ever could.
Second, there is a serious split within the ACLU itself. One of the
most interesting and significant developments in this whole debate
occurred just this past June during the House debate on campaign
finance reform when a group of former leaders of the ACLU released a
statement on their opinion of the
[[Page S10171]]
constitutionality of the House version of the McCain-Feingold bill.
Mr. President, this isn't just one, if you will, disgruntled former
leader of the ACLU. This statement was released by nine former leaders
of the organization. They include every living person who has served as
president, executive director, legal director, or legislative director
of the ACLU for the past 30 years, except for one person who is
currently in Government service and is not free to express his opinion.
That is quite a thing--all of those former ACLU officials indicating
they do believe that this bill is constitutional. Let me just read from
the letter of June 19, the statement of persons who have served in the
American Civil Liberties Union in leadership positions supporting the
constitutionally of efforts to enact reasonable campaign finance
reform. They say:
We have devoted much of our professional lives to the ACLU,
and to the protection of free speech. We are proud of our
ACLU service, and we continue to support the ACLU's matchless
efforts to preserve the Bill of Rights. We have come to
believe, however, that the opposition to campaign finance
reform expressed by the ACLU misreads the First Amendment. In
our opinion, the First Amendment does not forbid content-
neutral efforts to place reasonable limits on campaign
spending.
We believe that the First Amendment is designed to
safeguard a functioning and fair democracy. The current
system of campaign financing makes a mockery of that ideal by
enabling the rich to set the national agenda, and to exercise
disproportionate influence over the behavior of public
officials.
Later in the letter the same individuals said,
. . . even within the limitations of the Buckley decision,
we believe that significant campaign finance reform is both
possible and constitutional. We support elimination of the
``soft money'' loophole that allows unlimited campaign
contributions to political parties, undermining Congress's
effort to regulate the size and source of campaign
contributions to candidates. We believe that Congress, for
the purpose of regulating the size and source of federal
campaign contributions, may treat a contribution to the
political party sponsoring a federal candidate as though it
were a contribution to the candidate directly.
We also support regulation to the funding of political
advertising that is clearly intended to affect the outcome of
a specific federal election, but that omits the magic words
``vote for'' or ``vote against''. We believe that Congress
may draft a narrowly tailored provision regulating the
funding of so-called ``issue advertisements'' that mention
one or more of the candidates, appear shortly before the
election, and are geographically targeted in an obvious
effort to affect the outcome of a specific federal election.
These individuals conclude by saying:
We believe that the current debate over campaign financing
reform in the House of Representatives and the Senate should
center on the important policy questions raised by various
efforts at reform. Opponents of reform should no longer be
permitted to hide behind an unjustified constitutional
spokescreen.
I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of these nine former
members of the ACLU be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
June 19, 1998.
Statement of Persons Who Have Served the American Civil Liberties Union
in Leadership Positions Supporting the Constitutionality of Efforts to
Enact Reasonable Campaign Finance Reform
We have served the American Civil Liberties Union in
leadership positions over several decades. Norman Dorsen
served as ACLU General Counsel from 1969-1976 and as
President of the ACLU from 1976-1991. Jack Pemberton and
Aryeh Neier served as Executive Directors of the ACLU from
1962-1978. Melvin Wulf, Bruce Ennis, Burt Neuborne, and John
Powell served as National Legal Directors of the ACLU from
1962-1992. Charles Morgan, Jr., and Morton Halperin served as
National Legislative Directors of the ACLU from 1972-1976,
and 1984-1992, respectively. Indeed, except for one person
currently in government service, and, therefore, not free to
express a personal opinion, we constitute every living person
to have served as ACLU President, ACLU Executive Director,
ACLU Legal Director, or ACLU Legislative Director during the
past 30 years, with the exception of the current leadership.
We have devoted much of our professional lives to the ACLU,
and to the protection of free speech. We are proud of our
ACLU service, and continue to support the ACLU's matchless
efforts to preserve the Bill of Rights. We have come to
believe, however, that the opposition to campaign finance
reform expressed by the ACLU misreads the First Amendment. In
our opinion, the First Amendment does not forbid content-
neutral efforts to place reasonable limits on campaign
spending.
We believe that the First Amendment is designed to
safeguard a functioning and fair democracy. The current
system of campaign financing makes a mockery of that ideal by
enabling the rich to set the national agenda, and to exercise
disproportionate influence over the behavior of public
officials.
We believe that Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 Supreme Court
case that makes it extremely difficult to reform the current,
disastrous campaign financing system, should be overruled for
three reasons. First, the Buckley opinion inappropriately
treats the spending of money as though it were pure speech,
no matter how high the spending limits may be. But such an
approach ignores the long-established Supreme Court rule that
when speech is inextricably intertwined with conduct, the
conduct may be regulated if it threatens to cause serious
harm. While we agree that unreasonably low spending limits
would unconstitutionally impinge on free speech, the Buckley
Court failed to recognize that there is a compelling interest
in defending democracy that justifies reasonable spending
limits. Reasonable spending limits would free candidates and
officials to concentrate on substantive questions of public
policy, instead of spending excessive time raising campaign
funds. Reasonable spending limits would also free candidates
from becoming trapped in an arms race mentality, where each
candidate is forced to continue raising money, not because
they wish to, but to prevent being outspent by an
opponent.
Second, the Buckley opinion makes an untenable distinction
between campaign contributions, which may be subjected to
stringent government regulation, and campaign expenditures,
which are virtually immune from regulation. The bright-line
distinction between contributions and expenditures is neither
analytically nor pragmatically defensible. By upholding
limits on the size and source of campaign contributions,
while preventing any effort to limit the demand for campaign
funds by capping spending, the Buckley Court inadvertently
created a system that tempts politicians to break the law
governing campaign contributions in order to satisfy an
uncontrollable need for campaign cash.
Third, the Buckley Court erred in refusing to permit the
establishment of reasonable spending limits designed to avoid
unfair domination of the electoral process by a small group
of extremely wealthy persons. Instead of ``one person-one
vote'', the Buckley decision has resulted in a regime of
``one dollar-one vote'' that magnifies the political
influence of extremely wealthy individuals and distorts the
fundamental principle of political equality underlying the
First Amendment itself, causing great harm to the democratic
principles that underlie the Constitution.
It is our hope that the current Supreme Court, confronted
with the unfortunate practical implications of the Buckley
decision, and the serious flaws in its constitutional
analysis, will reconsider the decision, and permit reasonable
legislative efforts to reform our campaign financing system.
Moreover, even within the limitations of the Buckley
decision, we believe that significant campaign finance reform
is both possible and constitutional. We support elimination
of the ``soft money'' loophole that allows unlimited campaign
contributions to political parties, undermining Congress's
effort to regulate the size and source of campaign
contributions to candidates. We believe that Congress, for
the purpose of regulating the size and source of federal
campaign contributions, may treat a contribution to the
political party sponsoring a federal candidate as though it
were a contribution to the candidate directly.
We also support regulation of the funding of political
advertising that is clearly intended to affect the outcome of
a specific federal election, but that omits the magic words
``vote for'' or ``vote against''. We believe that Congress
may draft a narrowly tailored provision regulating the
funding of so-called ``issue advertisements'' that mention
one or more of the candidates, appear shortly before the
election, and are geographically targeted in an obvious
effort to affect the outcome of a specific federal election.
We believe that the current debate over campaign financing
reform in the House of Representatives and the Senate should
center on the important policy questions raised by various
efforts at reform. Opponents or reform should no longer be
permitted to hide behind an unjustified constitutional
smokescreen.
Norman Dorsen, Jack Pemberton, Aryeh Neier, Melvin Wulf,
Bruce Ennis, Burt Neuborne, John Powell, Charles
Morgan, Jr., Morton Halperin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I think this is a very significant
letter that undercuts this, frankly, false notion that the soft money
ban and some of the other key provisions in our bill are
unconstitutional.
I am delighted now we have worked out the logjam on time and that the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas is here to continue his remarks on
this issue.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
[[Page S10172]]
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to lead off with one of Mo Udall's
great statements: Everything that needs to be said has been said but
everybody hasn't said it. So I want to get my two cents in before we
vote on this measure this afternoon.
A moment ago, I said everything about this issue I feel strongly
about, except for one thing: While I strongly support this legislation,
I also believe that the ultimate solution to this problem is public
financing. Unhappily, I will no longer be a member of this
distinguished body when this Country and Congress finally comes to its
senses and realizes that until we go to public financing, our democracy
is simply not going to work. I am reluctant to make an admission today,
but I have always prided myself on standing up for things that
oftentimes were unpopular but I felt strongly were right.
I say to my colleagues, that I believe that one of the things that
has sustained me is the reputation of having taken a tough stance from
time to time. But since I announced that I would not seek reelection
last June, and as I have walked on the Senate floor to vote, I have
pondered how much the freedom of not running for reelection has
influenced my vote. Now, that being said, I have cast many unpopular
votes that have irritated the people of my State, on such subjects as
the Panama Canal Treaty, and partial-birth abortion. However, after I
announced I wouldn't run again, I have asked myself, How would I vote
on this if I were up for reelection and knew I had to raise $3 or $4
million?
I believe there isn't a person in this body who can truthfully and
frequently say they are willing to take on interest groups. After all,
we are supposed to be servants of our constituents. But oftentimes
there are interest groups back home we are trying to satisfy because
they have a block of votes. We might vote their way. Even if we vote
our conscious, the public can never be sure our votes were untainted.
The second thing that influences our vote is how our support or
opposition will affect our money supply. I saw a comparison in the
paper this morning of two PACs, of House and Senate leaders and the
amount of money that certain individual groups gave those leaders for
their PACs. Staggering amounts of money. I don't care how altruistic it
is for ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' it is foolish in the extreme
to argue that this is a free speech debate. Mr. President, 94 percent
of the people who run for office in this country win if they have more
money than their opponents. A lot of good men and women are defeated
every year in this country because they are not incumbents and they
can't raise money. The people who give the big bucks don't like to give
their money to challengers because they start out behind and usually
stay behind. Of the 33 Senate races this year, I daresay there will be
very, very few changes, in any, of those seats. In almost every
instance, the candidate who has the most money and spends the most
money will win the election.
Sometimes I think about debates. I have the first amendment that we
will consider on the Interior bill when we go back to it this
afternoon. It is mine, and it is one that the mining industry of this
country doesn't like. It is an environmental issue. I will make all of
the arguments that I have made on this floor time and again, not only
on that amendment but the whole issue of the 1872 mining law, which has
been out of date for over 100 years now. God gave us one planet, only
one. We don't get a second chance. Incidentally, I have always argued
that the No. 1 problem in the world, of course, is population, but you
can't argue that here because the first thing you hear is that somebody
has converted it into an abortion argument. So we continue to neglect
the No. 1 problem in the world; namely, the growing population of the
planet. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, ``Help save the
planet, kill yourself.'' Clearly, that is a pretty draconian way to
save the planet. We ought to be talking sensibly about population
growth, as we have been regarding campaign finance reform.
I can go on and on about this, and will continue to do so until the
taxpayers of this country understand that this is not an issue of free
speech. If the American people buy this argument, they are essentially
saying, ``I'm willing for somebody else to have more free speech than I
do because they have more money.'' As we all know, about 90 percent of
the people in this country can't afford to contribute and don't
contribute.
I had a few more remarks, but I understand the Senator from Georgia
is pressed for time. I now yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the suggestion by the
Senator from Arkansas. I have to depart in a few minutes, so he may
choose to continue his remarks at that point.
Let me say that I respectfully disagree with the comments we just
heard from the Senator from Arkansas, as does the Supreme Court of the
United States. I am comfortable that if every member of the Founding
Fathers were here today, they would rise up in a loud chorus. The first
amendment to the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, makes it
absolutely and abundantly and succinctly clear that there shall be
freedom of speech. It doesn't define that somebody has this big a
bucket and somebody has something else. It doesn't say a newspaper has
the right to say anything it chooses, but some other kind of company
will be constrained and managed by the Government.
Of all the things that I believe the forefathers were most concerned
about, it was the management of expression, the management of speech.
They were very careful. They were going to protect the American
citizens' right to assemble. Until the late 1700s, in Great Britain two
people could not get together in a club or in an association. Why?
Because the government was afraid of people coming together. They might
think up ideas; they might want to talk about them. So they said there
will be freedom of speech, there will be freedom of the press, there
will be a right to assemble, and there will be a right to petition the
government--they didn't say it, but without fear. These four things are
in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. They are probably, to
this day, the core of the American Constitution.
This has been tested over and over, and the Supreme Court has said
that expression costs money. If you are going to have a town hall
meeting, you have to rent the town hall. If you want to covey a message
to a large audience, you can't go door to door; you are going to have
to do it in a television ad or a newspaper ad. By the way, what is the
difference between a corporation that publishes a newspaper or runs a
television station and a corporation that makes tractors? Does one have
a higher standing? Not under the Constitution. The outfit that makes
tractors can spend money and express themselves just like a newspaper.
Heaven help us if we ever come to the point where the only institution
in our country that has freedom of speech is the media. If everything a
political person does or a Government official does is only interpreted
by the media, heaven help us. I used to say, if you are for the
Government managing what people say, you better know the manager. You
better know the manager.
This whole issue is dominated by the subject of freedom of speech. I
heard the distinguished Senator from Kentucky say many times that if
this ever became law, it won't last. The Supreme Court will strike it
down, which is probably the case, but it ought not to become law. It
ought not to become law. Anybody reading the rulings of the Supreme
Court understands very clearly that expression and financing expression
are one and the same and cannot be separated.
The last institution in the world that the forefathers would have
ever wanted to manage speech is the Government. In fact, if you look at
the Constitution from top to bottom, it is designed to protect us from
Government--our own Government. They fought a revolution over this.
They knew well what was happening in Europe. They looked over and saw
what was happening in Ireland and said that is not going to happen in
America. Of all the language in the Constitution, the most carefully
crafted language for which there can be no question about its
interpretation is the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of
speech shall not be abridged.
no...@senate.gov
[[Page S10173]]
This legislation does that. It abridges and begins to manage who can
say what, when they can say it, and how much of it they can say. And
any Government official ought to be very wary of a situation where one
group of Americans can say anything they choose, at any time, with any
intensity, and another group of Americans can only say what somebody
else decided they should say, when they should say it, and how much.
Mr. President, I could never support anything like that, as
frustrated as we all get. Every American, at some point, has been
affronted by freedom of speech. It has been frustrating to them to hear
what somebody says or how they express themselves. I have been and
everybody else has been. But better to suffer the frustration than to
give that liberty to somebody to manage speech. America would never be
the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just conclude my remarks by
reiterating something I said earlier about the issue of free speech. We
all know that the difficulty is a constitutional one because the courts
have ruled that this is a free speech issue. But it can be overcome. It
can be overcome with the McCain-Feingold bill. It can be overcome with
public financing. There are all kinds of ways to amend the way we
finance campaigns in this country without violating free speech. But
let me just ask my constituents--no, let me ask my colleagues--no, my
colleagues have already made up their minds. Let me ask the American
people: Do you think we have a nice, democratic, fair system of
electing Members of the House and Senate when some fat cat can give a
candidate $4,000; he and his wife can give a candidate $4,000--$2,000
for the primary, $2,000 for the general. I ask you, how much can a
working man making $10 an hour on an assembly line give? The question
answers itself. If he has a wife and two kids, he can't give anything.
I don't care how much he may love a candidate; he is not in a position,
at $10 an hour, to be making political contributions.
The second question: When a candidate gets $4,000 from a fat cat--
when legislation is being considered in the U.S. Congress, who will get
the candidate's attention? The poor stiff with a wife and two children
to feed, educate and clothe and who is trying to make a living? How
much attention is he going to get compared to the guy who gave $4,000?
Now, that is an illustration that is palpably clear to everybody.
Herman Talmadge, one of the great Senators who served here, had a lot
of sayings in making speeches. He said, ``If you want your audience to
pay attention, you've got to throw the corn where the hogs can get to
it.'' You have to say it so people can understand it. What I just said
is understandable. It is essentially as much a one-line description of
what this debate is about as anything I can conjure up.
The guy that gave $4,000 gets a lot of free speech, and a lot of the
free speech he gets goes right into the ear of the Senator or the
Congressman that got the $4,000. And when the phone call comes into the
office from the poor guy making $10 an hour, with a wife and kids,
because he wants a passport or because he knows a friend from Bolivia
that is being mistreated under the immigration laws, do you know where
his phone call goes if it is answered at all? It goes back to the
staff. Where does the call go from the guy who gave $4,000? You and I
both know where it goes. It goes directly into the office of the
Senator. Do you call that free speech? Do you call that a democracy?
It is impossible to keep up with the campaign finance laws as they
are written today. One of the things Al Gore is charged with is making
a phone call from his office to solicit money.
I am not going to say anymore about that because everybody here
understands that. The President is under investigation now under a 90-
day sort of determination by the Attorney General as to whether or not
in 1996 his campaign coordinated some ads with the Democratic National
Committee.
Today my side is going to lose. The way we finance campaigns is going
to continue exactly as it has been since the memory of mind runneth
not, and investigations of either Democrats, or Republicans, or both
will continue. It is impossible to level the laws of this country, and
in this very hostile partisan environment.
Sometimes I think about offering a resolution in the Senate saying it
is the sense of the Senate that there are some Democrats who have not
yet been investigated and we want to know why.
We will continue to lose this debate until the American people wake
up not only to the corruption of the financing laws of the country, but
to the fact that their democracy is disappearing right under their
nose.
It is so difficult at times to get people to focus on something that
is a little bit complicated. They don't understand. Since it doesn't
really relate to them, they just do not want to be bothered.
Republicans--I will hand it to them. They are zealots. Rain or shine,
they go vote. My party--we have to ride in the sunshine. In all
fairness, I have to say that we represent a lot of people who do not
own automobiles. They oftentimes don't have ways to get to the polls,
unless some of that campaign money is given to drivers to go out and
get them and bring them in.
I saw a poll that showed that 71 percent of all Republicans say they
are going to vote, and about 60 percent of the Democrats say they are
not going to vote. Unless that figure changes, I can tell you what this
election is going to do. I assume the President has to take some
responsibility for that. I just do not know. He is my friend, and that
is a separate subject. We will deal with that later.
But even absent the Starr report, absent Monica Lewinsky, we had a
plateful for the American people to ingest. Part of that plateful is
corruption, which is, in my opinion, as threatening to the Nation as
the Kenneth Starr report is.
I suspect this country is in a bit of a funk today. I haven't looked
at the market yet. It started off down this morning. I think that is
all the result of people being upset and depressed--and, is the country
leaderless? How is this all going to come out? Is it going to take 5 or
6 months to get this resolved? All of those things.
Tonight, when you listen to the news, that is all you will hear.
Tomorrow night, when you listen to the news, that is all you will hear.
And here is something that goes right to the heart of whether we
survive as a democracy, or not. Frankly--I hate to condemn the public--
they are not paying attention. Every poll shows it. What is the most
important thing to you? Campaign finance is about tenth on the list.
Democrats keep trying to make it a big issue, trying to get people to
pay attention to it, and in all fairness, seven or eight Republicans.
But how can you expect them to when they hear absolutely nothing on the
evening news but Monica Lewinsky and Kenneth Starr's report. As I say,
I am not condemning the American people. That is just the way we are
made. That salacious stuff is a lot more exciting than talking about
campaign finance reform, which is complex.
Mr. President, I have said all that I want to say, and all that I
need to say. But I especially wanted to put in the part about free
speech.
It is so tragic that everybody here knows who is getting the free
speech, and everybody knows whose voice is not heard because of the way
we finance campaigns. I say that we ought to go to public financing.
That way every person in this country who is a taxpayer would know that
his vote was as important as anybody else's. His voice would be as
important as anybody else's. As long as it is the richest and the
wealthiest people who determine the outcome of elections in this
country, where do you think we are headed? I will leave that question
with you.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to express my
[[Page S10174]]
concerns about the pending McCain-Feingold amendment.
Since the beginning of the 105th Congress, I have heard from
Minnesotans on a variety of important issues such as high taxes and the
future of social security. Despite the public outcry by my constituents
to address these issues important to America's working families, I am
very concerned that the Senate is again debating a proposal to regulate
political speech.
I commend Senators McCain and Feingold for their deeply held views
that the only way to restore the public's trust in their government is
to reform the system for financing our federal campaigns. As someone
who has heard first-hand of the public's growing mistrust of their
government, I strongly agree with their belief that the people's trust
in their government should be restored and their participation in our
democracy encouraged.
However, I respectfully disagree with their approach to the passage
of new campaign finance laws.
By the way, these new laws become even more restrictive on who can be
involved, what they can say, and how they can be a participant in the
public policies of this country.
The people's faith in the Government can be restored, I believe, by
encouraging greater enforcement of our existing campaign finance laws,
rather than going out and trying to ignore the laws that were
broken, and passing new laws that again would only silence those
Americans who wish to have their voices heard.
Each time the Senate has considered a version of the McCain-Feingold
proposal, Minnesotans have contacted me in large numbers not in support
of its passage but out of great concern for its potential impact upon
their first amendment right of free speech guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution. Moreover, they have demanded that Congress focus more on
the allegations of campaign finance irregularities during the 1996
campaign cycle rather than passing new campaign finance laws. In other
words, not to brush over those laws that were broken or those who broke
those laws and try to camouflage this by saying all we have to do is
pass new campaign finance laws and everything will be fixed. That is
like trying to pass new laws every day to take care of old problems. We
need to get to the source of the problem.
In this regard, I am encouraged by Attorney General Reno's recent
decision to initiate a 90-day investigation of whether President
Clinton's involvement in Democratic National Committee campaign
advertisements in 1996 circumvented election laws. And the Attorney
General should also be commended for continuing the Justice
Department's investigation of whether Vice President Gore unlawfully
raised campaign contributions from the White House, and the activities
of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, during the
1996 campaign cycle.
Current law works if we enforce it. Despite the modifications that
proponents of McCain-Feingold have made to improve support for this
initiative, my views on its basic premise have not changed. Similar to
the previous versions of this bill, this proposal will discourage
rather than promote greater participation in the democratic process.
They always talk about big money and how that controls the process and
how we should be encouraging and what we should be doing to encourage
more people, those $10-an-hour workers who we have heard about in the
Chamber today, to become a voice no matter how small, and to
participate in the political process. The way they can do that is
through PACs, political action committees, and that is where a lot of
people with little incomes can put their money together to have a
stronger voice in how their government works and how it operates, and
we should encourage that, not discourage it.
Most fundamentally, the McCain-Feingold proposal continues to be
based upon the belief that there is too much money spent on American
elections--too much money. About $3.50 per person per year is spent on
campaigns, totally, in this country. That is less money than we spend
on a Value Meal at McDonald's.
I remember talking to somebody about the United Nations. We spend
about $3.81 per person per year supporting the United Nations, and
everybody thinks we get a great deal out of that. But yet we spend less
money per person to support our way of government in this country, and
somehow they say that is spending too much money. So the whole
political process in this country is worth less to the supporters of
the McCain-Feingold bill than our support perhaps, say, for the United
Nations. I think we need to support this form of government and
encourage more people to participate, not to close the door and say
that this is how you can participate or we are going to manage what you
say, how you say it, when you can say it, and who can afford to say it.
If we accept this assumption, then Congress has decided to assert
questionable authority to suppress the rights of Americans to become
involved in the political process and suppress the rights of many
Americans to have their voices heard.
As my colleagues know, the belief that there is government
justification for regulating the costs of political campaigns was
rejected by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo.
The importance of conveying the ideas of those who seek office to the
electorate is critical and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Buckley. And in Buckley the Court declared that ``a restriction on the
amount of money a person or groups can spend on political communication
during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by
restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their
exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because
virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society
requires the expenditure of money.''
That is from the Buckley v. Valeo Court decision. They label this
bill as an effort to protect and preserve democracy. They say that
democracy is disappearing because of this. But this bill would not
protect free speech. It would only limit free speech. I would like to
ask those watching today that if you can restrict the speech of one
American today, whose speech can you restrict tomorrow? Are you going
to give the government this much control and say, well, let's do it
today to protect this process, but in doing this we are going to have
to take away some of your freedoms? We are going to have to impose
restrictions. We are going to manage those who want to participate in
the political process. And if we can do that today, who is going to
come tomorrow and say, well, let's squeeze these restrictions a little
more? And then who is going to come the next day and say, well, let's
squeeze these restrictions a little more? And pretty soon we are going
to take the ability of free speech, to participate in our political
process, away from Americans. And then who is going to have a voice? Is
it going to be the media, the newspapers, television? Are they going to
be the ones that define my campaign or Senator McCain's campaign or
maybe Senator Feingold's campaign? I think we need to have that
freedom.
For these reasons, I remain concerned about the core provision of the
McCain-Feingold bill which continues to place, again, questionable new
restrictions upon the ability of national parties to support State and
local party activities as well. We should not pursue a suspect
expansion of government control of national parties; rather, recognize
that political parties enjoy the same rights as individuals to
participate in the democratic process.
For nearly two decades, political parties have been allowed to raise
money for party building and similar activities without limits on the
size of contributions. Additionally, the Supreme Court decision in
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, in which the
Court found that Congress may not limit independent expenditures by
political parties, makes it questionable whether these restrictions
would be constitutional.
We have a responsibility to the American people to help restore their
faith in government. However, this cannot be accomplished by placing
new and expansive restrictions on the communication of ideas or the
issue of free speech. And above all else, we should not use violations
of existing laws that have raised a lot of this concern and ire of
Americans over campaign financing--those violations of existing laws
should not be used as an argument today to suppress our right of free
speech.
[[Page S10175]]
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, no one has been more active in the
vineyards of the first amendment than the Senator from Minnesota. I
thank him for his important contribution to this debate and his astute
observation that to the extent the parties and groups are quieted, the
voices are enhanced on the other side, or that is anybody's voice that
is not quieted is necessarily enhanced by that action, and in
particular the fourth estate, our friends in the press, who love this
issue, would have a dramatic increase in political clout as a result of
the quieting of the voices of so many other Americans.
So I thank my friend from Minnesota for his observations.
Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the fundamental notion underlying the
McCain-Feingold bill is that politicians should be allowed to control
all of the political speech in proximity to an election except for that
by the press. The press would be free and unfettered in engaging in
issue advocacy, in endorsing candidates, and doing anything it wanted
to under the first amendment at any time, up to and including the last
60 days before an election. I do not dispute that. I think they should
have that right. But I find it disingenuous at best--absurd, the more
you think about it--that the press would like to quiet the voices of
others.
First, they would like to quiet the voices of the parties by
eliminating so-called soft money. Mr. President, ``soft money'' is a
pejorative term for non-Federal money. This is a Federal system. There
are State elections, there are local elections; the two great national
parties frequently care who gets elected Governor of Arizona or who
gets elected to the city council in Phoenix. The notion that the
Federal Government should federalize the two great national parties is
absurd, inappropriate, and unwise.
In addition to that, it would provide for the Federal Election
Commission the power to supervise every election in America. In other
words, we would federalize the entire American political system. This
kind of notion of Federal power grabs and the quieting of voices also
applies to what the McCain-Feingold bill seeks to do to individuals and
groups.
Under this bill, it would be very difficult if not impossible for
individuals to express themselves, or groups to express themselves,
within 60 days of an election. ``Quiet those voices, too,'' the
politicians say. So we will quiet the parties by making it impossible
for them to involve themselves in State and local elections, and make
it impossible for them to engage in issue advocacy, constitutionally
protected speech, and we will also reach over to the issue advocacy of
everybody else and we will make it impossible for them to criticize any
of us within 60 days of an election.
This is a great idea for incumbents. We all would like to control our
elections, and this would sure give us a way to do it. We would not
have to worry any longer about those nasty interest groups that don't
like our voting records going out there in the last 2 months before an
election and saying bad things about us; we would shut them up. We
wouldn't have our political party coming in to defend us or, for that
matter, the other political party coming in to attack us; we would shut
them up.
In short, we would just sort of hermetically seal the environment for
60 days before an election, with the exception of the New York Times,
the Washington Post, USA Today, and all the other folks who would still
be free--as they should be free--under the first amendment to have
their say at any point in the course of a year, including the last 60
days before an election.
Mr. President, this is terrible public policy--terrible public
policy--disguised as some kind of positive reform. The good news is, we
are not going to pass this bill, but if we had passed it, the issue
advocacy restrictions on outside groups would certainly not survive the
first Federal district court in which it landed, and I guarantee you,
it would land there very, very quickly. When something is so clearly
and obviously unconstitutional, it seems to me that the Senate ought
not to pass it.
With regard to the political parties, why in the world, Mr.
President, should we prevent the political parties from engaging in
issue advocacy? Everybody else in America will be able to do it,
because I guarantee you, the restrictions on independent groups in this
bill would be struck down. There is not a serious constitutional lawyer
in the country who doubts that.
Everybody would be free to have their say in the last 60 days before
an election: Outside groups, because the restrictions on them would
certainly fall as unconstitutional; the newspapers, because no one
really wants to shut them up. We don't frequently like what they have
to say, but they have a right to say it. But the political parties are
conceivably taken off the playing field--the one entity in American
politics that, for example, is willing to support challengers, those
trying to come from nowhere to get elected. It is not easy to be a
challenger. The one entity out there willing to support challengers is
the political parties. We ought not to be making them weaker, we ought
to be encouraging them to be strengthened.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes, 50 seconds
remaining.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from
Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
Sometimes the wrong debate happens at the wrong time, and the debate
that we have heard on this floor for the last several days, in my
opinion, is the wrong debate for a lot of reasons. We shouldn't be
talking about changing laws, but enforcing the very laws we have.
I think all of us watched as the Congress decided to change campaign
laws a good number of years ago to make them much tougher and tighter,
to create reporting thresholds, and to make sure that the public was
well aware what went on in the campaign business of our country and in
the fundraising business of our country.
Several of our colleagues have already spoken today about the ongoing
investigations into campaign finance abuses. Those abuses didn't happen
because the laws were inadequate. It doesn't mean that you are going to
get character change all of a sudden because of a myriad of new laws
that this Congress might pass.
Now the spin machines are using the issue of campaign finance reform
to suggest that the entire system is crooked and corrupt. Mr.
President, and American citizens, that just ``ain't'' so. There are
some people in the system who have chosen to corrupt it, but the
campaign system we have today is alive and well, as it should be. Most
of us play by the rules, and the rules are tough, and they are
exacting. The reason they ought to be is to assure the right of all
political candidates to speak out and to make sure that the American
public can have, as they should have, the proper access to the
political process.
The votes that are going to occur on this floor in the next few
moments are absolutely critical. I am frustrated by many of my
colleagues who stand up and suggest that the political system that we
have today is a corrupt system. It has been corrupted by some, and
those who are corrupting it are under investigation today. But clearly
it is a system that works--it works very well--reporting to the public,
as we should, what is the right and responsible thing to do,
particularly at a time in our history when confidence has been shaken
in some of our institutions.
It is absolutely imperative that we do not put new restrictions into
the ability of the politician, the public person, to communicate with
his or her
[[Page S10176]]
constituents in an open and frank manner. Existing law allows that. I
don't think we need to be tampering with our first amendment or
suggesting in some way that we can make it a lot better. We just simply
need those few who corrupt the system to abide by the laws as they are
currently written and currently administered.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Idaho for his contribution to this debate and the other Senators who
spoke on our behalf during this discussion. This is a very important
issue affecting the first amendment and the rights of all Americans to
speak in the political process. I am confident that the motion to
invoke cloture will not succeed.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin controls the time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from
Arizona requires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, let me begin by thanking all those
who have fought so very hard to pass campaign finance reform, both
within this body and without. I specifically mention by name the
measure's cosponsors: Senator Thompson, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins,
Senator Levin, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Jeffords. All have
expended great energy to keep this issue before the Senate.
Also, I again thank my colleagues in the House, Congressman Shays and
Congressman Meehan. We would not be doing what we are doing today if it
had not been for their signal and unpredicted victory.
Most importantly, I thank my partner on this 4-year journey, the
Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold. His work on this issue has been
outdone by none. His efforts are tireless, and he deserves great praise
for bringing us to this point today. Together we have worked to do the
bidding of the majority of the American people. We worked to pass
legislation that is supported by majorities in both Houses, although a
minority has continued to thwart our efforts. But time is on our side.
Yesterday and today, I have quoted previous debates on this subject.
One fact that is clear in every one of these debates is that, with
persistence, we will prevail. I hope we prevail today. If we do not, I
will be back to offer campaign finance reform legislation again and
again and again. Neither I nor the Senator from Wisconsin will relent.
The will of the American people, their desire to see what they perceive
as a corrupt election system cleaned up, cannot be perpetually ignored.
The public wants us to act.
Low voter turnout--and we will perhaps see the lowest voter turnout
this century, this November--is ample proof of the growing cynicism of
the electorate. That cynicism, if left unchecked, will grow to contempt
and shake the foundations of this great Nation. Let us not
procrastinate further. Let us confound public cynicism and accede to
the country's wishes today.
The Senate was conceived by our Founding Fathers as an institution
that acts deliberatively. Certainly we have seen this occur on this
matter. But it was not conceived to block indefinitely the will of the
people. Many significant matters have been slowed or stalled in this
body. Many have taken years to pass. Campaign finance is undoubtedly
one of those subjects. But to repeat myself yet again, this body will
act and pass campaign finance reform. If not today, then soon. It will
happen. Delay is not resolution, merely postponement of the inevitable
and thus pointless.
Until we recognize the futility of procrastination, the money chase
in this hallowed Capitol, the debasement of the White House, the
selling of trade missions, the never-ending series of fundraising
scandals that leads the public more and more to believe that elected
officials only represent monied special interests will not end.
Congress can and must and will change this system. If we do not act,
there will be more scandals, both parties will be further tainted by
this system, no one will be left unscathed, and that fact will force
this body to do what is right.
When do we as a body come to realize that something must be done? And
to my Republican colleagues: When will we realize it was our ideas, not
our fundraising prowess, that got us to power? The American public
granted us the majorities in both Houses because, I would argue, our
ideas were superior to those of the opposition. Our ideas represented
what a majority of Americans felt and believed. We do not need to fear
a new campaign finance regime so long as we continue to best represent
the public interests. And because I so strongly believe that fact, I
appeal to my Republican colleagues to support cloture and allow us to
move forward on this matter.
Finally, Mr. President, let me close by again putting my colleagues
on notice. If we cannot move forward today, we will soon. To those who
will proclaim the issue dead, nothing--I repeat, nothing--is further
from the truth. As long as I am privileged to serve in this great
institution, we will revisit campaign finance reform again and again.
We will revisit the subject until it becomes the law of the land. We
will revisit it because the will of the majority over time always
prevails. And we will revisit it because it is the right thing to do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 3 minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
Let me take this opportunity to thank all of the cosponsors and all
the supporters of this bill, especially the senior Senator from Arizona
who came here with the idea for this legislation I guess it is now 4
years ago.
I thank everyone for their efforts in the past but, more importantly,
for their continued efforts in the future, including this year, on
trying to finish the job. So I have a feeling of gratitude, not only
for what we have done but for what we will accomplish before we are
done.
Let me take the very brief time I have just to refer to a statement
by the Senator from Idaho which I think really sums up this whole
issue. He just got done saying on the floor that the current campaign
system is ``a system that works very well.'' He said, ``The campaign
finance system is alive and well, as it should be.'' That is what the
Senator from Idaho said.
Well, if you agree with that statement, I guess you will want to vote
against cloture. But that is not what the American people believe. They
think this system is broken. And it is not just a few people who are
corrupting the system, it is the system that is corrupt, and we have to
do something about it now.
So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. The time
has come for the additional eight Senators to allow the majority of
both Houses of the Congress to send this bill on to the President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining. Does he
wish to yield the time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve the time.
I yield the remaining time I have to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the struggle for life for campaign finance
reform is going to be determined by a test of wills between the
bipartisan majority that believes in it, reflecting the will of the
American people, and the minority that will attempt to filibuster this
bill to death.
The supporters of campaign finance reform need not withdraw, should
not withdraw, and I believe and hope will not withdraw the bill if the
filibuster survives this cloture vote. It will then be up to the
filibusterers to continue the filibuster. Hopefully, over time they
will see that the American people are determined to change a system
which is not only corrupt but has a corruption which permeates and
undermines public confidence in our democratic electoral process.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate
[[Page S10177]]
the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provision of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
campaign finance reform amendment:
Trent Lott, Connie Mack, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Thad
Cochran, Wayne Allard, Rod Grams, Larry E. Craig, Kay
Bailey Hutchison, James M. Inhofe, Richard G. Lugar,
Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, Don
Nickles, Dan Coats, and Lauch Faircloth.
Call Of The Roll
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call under the rule has been waived.
Vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on amendment No. 3554 to S. 2237, the Interior
appropriations bill, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are
required under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Thompson
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--48
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). On this vote, the yeas are 52,
the nays are 48.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, is
recognized in morning business for 1 hour.
The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, upon the conclusion of the time of the
Senator from Florida, what is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business will be the Interior
appropriations bill.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the current amendment, the Feingold amendment, be
the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the pending question.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Florida is
recognized.
____________________